I'm posting here a comment I posted this morning on RSR:

Here's a thought to ponder...

What's the difference between an ignorant conservative and an ignorant liberal? The liberal is embarrassed by it.

Irwin, when the consequence of overheated emotion leads to a great insult to others I don't believe drawing a distinction really matters. What I find even more outrageous is that it took forever for the families to learn the truth. I believe what the pilot did was a terrible accident. What happened to the truth subsequently appears intentional. Those bastards deseve severe treatment for perpetuating a fraud on those families. Truth is like mercury, eventually it leaks out and there is a mess to clean up.

Anderson obviously, from his remarks, does not even know the difference between England and Britain, he should get some education and then a good book about World War 2. He should be made aware that WW2 started in 1939, not with Pearl Harbour.
I admit, I did suck my thumb, as a five year old boy, sheltering during frequent nightly German air raids. The USA eventually joined the war, it was appreciated beyond words, Britain could not have held out much longer and WW2 would not have been won without the brave forces of the USA. But how we all wished the USA had joined WW2, with Britain in 1939, the war would not have lasted almost six years and many lives would not have been lost, on both sides.

But Anderson should know, only the children sucked their thumbs in Britain, their mothers & fathers being too busy fighting WW2 and many being blitzed out of their homes at night.
Maybe sucking our thumbs supplemented our meagre food rations.

Anderson should try sucking his thumb in preference to his foot!

Craig,

My post wasn't so much a response to this particular unfortunate incident, but was rather a general comment on how a number of (but certainly not all) conservatives wrap themselves in a cloak of ignorance, and consider it a badge of honor. For a liberal, on the other hand, to be considered ignorant is a source of great shame. I posted it under this topic merely because it appears that this particular individual (Eldon Anderson) is a prime example of this attitude. And I do agree that whoever was behind the coverup deserves to be (metaphorically) drawn and quartered.

Irwin, you wrote that for a liberal to be considered ignorant is a source of great shame. Since we are generalizing, I doubt that shame is evoked in all liberals the same way. As we discussed on another topic, Hillary Clinton stated without qualification that we can stop global warming. Whether that was ignorance or deliberate deceit I doubt if that brought up feelings of head hanging shame. In my opinion, wisdom to know what to say, when to say it or refrain from comment at all is not predicated on education or the lack thereof. When wisdom is subjected to the pressure cooker of emotion or the reach for the political brass ring, people tend to say and do regretful things. Hopefully, Mr. Anderson understands this point now and will issue a meaningful apology.

I'm British. OK, I was too young to remember much about World War 2, but I did know about the aftermath in Liverpool, where I grew up. I think we should all calm down about the comments from Mr Anderson, who I think spoke in defence of his friend in the heat of the moment. Never the less, my father (who is now 90 years old) was very hurt by Mr Anderson's comments, as he lost many friends in action and family back in the UK due to bombing. So let's all forget about this. The US and the UK may not see eye to eye on everything, but at least we have fought together many times, and that has to stand for something. I also realise that the majority of Americans do not share Mr Anderson's views.

Perhaps you should also look at the context of the interview. We have no idea what was said by the ITN interviewer prior to the interview or what emails or phone calls were sent to Eldon prior to this event.

I think what happened here is that media, in their sensationalistic story seeking way, did the unthinkable. That is to interview a man with the sole reason of getting him fired up first, keep the cameras rolling, and edit a wonderful opinion piece that would make Americans look like idiots. They baited the guy and he let loose with an unfortunate grouping of words that was delightfully used by these termagants.

Further more, he mentioned Europe as a whole and not just the UK, in his tirade. The UK and all of the Commonwealth countries have greatly contributed to the war effort. Where as certain European countries, to include countries like France and Germany, have not contributed that much. They also take great pains to speak against the war effort in Iraq. But why would France and Germany want to destroy a economic partner like Saddam Hussein? See Iraq history and it's oil for food program and who built the oil infrastructure.

But to reiterate, the guy did say some things that were totally taken out of context. He is somewhat to blame, because he could have just smiled and said very little. Or we can recognize that he was a victim of a ruthless media machine that is trying to sell copy and get ratings. Dumb ignorant Americans insulting an entire country makes for a great story and I applaud ITN's brazen and ugly journalistic assault on making a bad accident (the friendly fire incident) even worse.

Matt, if the lion was repeatedly poked with a stick by the ITN interviewers to get him to roar, I don't hold my breath for a contrite apology and a demostration of head hanging shame from them for sparking an ugly situation. However, we don't know what happened. Perhaps Mr. Anderson could provide further details.

I was as outraged as many Britons by the slur made by Mr Anderson against my country and it's contribution during both WW2 and the current war in Iraq. At the same time I was heartened to see that many Idaho residents, including serving members of the U.S Armed Forces feel differently.

Here are a few historic events Mr Anderson ought to 'Google'. El Alamein, Kohima, Battle of Britain, Battle of the Atlantic. Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst (sinking of) and Normandy, with reference to Sword, Juno and Gold beaches along with Pegasus Bridge. None of the men who fought and died in these battles were 'thumb sucking'

Mr Anderson was upset, I'm sure, by being 'doorstepped' by a British TV crew out for a story. While I can understand this, it hardly excuses his 'shoot from the lip' comments.

My thoughts lie with Lance Corporal Hull's widow, Susan. Her husband is dead, accidentally killed by one of his own side and with the event recorded for all time on film.

I would advise Mr Anderson so seek out and talk to some of the bereaved relatives of the 17 U.S servicemen from Idaho killed so far in the war against terror. This might give him some insight into the lives of those other 132 dead soldiers from Britain who 'couldn't shoot, communicate or move' in his opinion, but who are still out there sharing the risks with their American allies.

Yours Sincerely,
Paul Fagan.
Leicester, United Kingdom.

I'm a British Citizen who lives in the USA (Charlotte, NC) and can thankfully say i've never met a single person who shares these views. I do tire with the "America saved us" comments regarding WWII as they are ignorant and uninformed.

It is true that the younger generation seem to be given history lessons via Hollywood as opposed to non-censored News Networks & History books, and that does nothing to help in international relations, especially between USA and your greatest allies in history - the British.

Too true! Hollywood (and Mr Spielberg in particular) are masters of dis-information, never letting the truth get in the way of a good story. Not telling it the way it really was cheapens the memory of a lot of good men, including that of those brave young Americans who were in the war before December 1941.

;) ;) Dear Mr. Owen, has your memory failed you? Back in the 90's the French were attacking British lorries and burning British sheep on their streets. If not but for American deterrence, French would be the primary language throughout Britain today. ;) ;)

Yes of course it would be. If not for American intervention half the wars wouldn't have happened in the first place and we'd all be using distilled water as fule etc etc and if it wasn't for the Brits you'd still be living in wig wams etc etc

i'm joking of course :p

back on topic please gents......

Nope, don't follow that reasoning at all?

Wow Matt. Yours is the morst outlandish spin attempting to justify that atrocious behavior of Mr. Anderson. I think Mr. Anderson could be characterized as a victim but not a victim of tabloid media so much but of drinking and regurgitating the Kool-aid that has been streaming out of the White House and its minions for five years. While it is rarely directed at Britain, it is certainly designed to foment ignorant xenophobic behavior which when exposed to the cold light of day looks pretty ugly. Sorry Charlie, I wish I could say that Mr. Anderson's opinions are unique but I hear this vitriol when I happen to overhear am talk radio. The fact that Mr Anderson chose to lash out at Britain is simply misplaced frustration at the position the US finds itself in the world today. Oddly Mr. Anderson chose to place his anger at the feet of our greatest ally instead of at the feet of the guy steering the ship.

There was a story circulating a while ago that some perfumed chocolate soldier in the Pentagon accused the British of 'institutional cowardice'. Any truth to that story do we think?

Respondent to John Gilbert’s recent video report from Idaho regarding the tragic death of Lance Corporal Matty Hull, and Eldon Anderson's comments, I am compelled to make a couple of points:

1. Did John Gilbert simply interview the first moron he could find? Did he even bother to verify that Eldon Anderson was indeed a “close friend” of the American pilot, AND a Vietnam veteran? Eldon Anderson’s ignorance and insensitivity is hardly representative of America at large. ITV's broadcast of this couch-moistener’s sensationalistic pablum is nothing less than a tabloidesque cheap shot at the American people and a shameful grab for ratings, adverts and website hits. With friends like ITV, America doesn’t need terrorists. Thanks for the boost in international relations, Mr. Gilbert.

2. As for Eldon Anderson himself, if he would get his head out of his posterior long enough to read a history book, he would know that Great Britain held off the Nazis pretty much single-handedly for the first part of World War II (as per usual the French of course were of little use save for the making of surrender flags). Great Britain has given us so much help, and America considers the country a valuable friend and ally. Mr. Anderson is a disgrace to our country, and if he indeed is a Vietnam veteran, it’s no wonder those guys lost.

I love America and Great Britain as well. It was personally hurtful to me to see Eldon Anderson’s stupidity broadcast without hesitation and without even one other person’s point of view to counterbalance that man’s lunacy. I challenge every journalist at ITV who isn’t just interested in sensationalism to show the majority of America as it truly is—not just what John Gilbert wants the British people and the world at large to see.

Tamara Winfrey Bennett
http://www.tamathy.com

Respondent to John Gilbert’s recent video report from Idaho regarding the tragic death of Lance Corporal Matty Hull, and Eldon Anderson's comments, I am compelled to make a couple of points:

1. Did John Gilbert simply interview the first moron he could find? Did he even bother to verify that Eldon Anderson was indeed a “close friend” of the American pilot, AND a Vietnam veteran? Eldon Anderson’s ignorance and insensitivity is hardly representative of America at large. ITV's broadcast of this couch-moistener’s sensationalistic pablum is nothing less than a tabloidesque cheap shot at the American people and a shameful grab for ratings, adverts and website hits. With friends like ITV, America doesn’t need terrorists. Thanks for the boost in international relations, Mr. Gilbert.

2. As for Eldon Anderson himself, if he would get his head out of his posterior long enough to read a history book, he would know that Great Britain held off the Nazis pretty much single-handedly for the first part of World War II (as per usual the French of course were of little use save for the making of surrender flags). Great Britain has given us so much help, and America considers the country a valuable friend and ally. Mr. Anderson is a disgrace to our country, and if he indeed is a Vietnam veteran, it’s no wonder those guys lost.

I love America and Great Britain as well. It was personally hurtful to me to see Eldon Anderson’s stupidity broadcast without hesitation and without even one other person’s point of view to counterbalance that man’s lunacy. I challenge every journalist at ITV who isn’t just interested in sensationalism to show the majority of America as it truly is—not just what John Gilbert wants the British people and the world at large to see.

Sysiphus, I find the bulk of your comment a tremendous load of manure. Xenophobic behaviour towards Britain???? None of us were there to know what triggered Mr. Anderson to make hurtful and outrageous remarks. You state your theory as fact and judge him and a host of others based on your theory of political relativity. You sound like your were having an Anderson moment. Don't believe everything you think before administering the lash.

Thanks for your input. Take a deep breath Craig. Go back and very slowly read what I wrote. Use a dictionary if you have to (I couldn't find political relativity anywhere) and try not so hard to prove Irwin's point so well. After all you issue a warning regarding the consequence of overheated emotion. I submit such does not grant license to insult and degrade the people of a nation or a continent. Anytime I hear a conservative like Mr. Anderson utter the phrase "you people" I shudder to hear what comes next.

But by all means, let's hear your defense of Mr. Anderson's words. And use the actual words mind you. I did not say he wasn't goaded, he probably was. I'm no fan of the methods used by tabloid journalism. I've seen the report and the "apology" or what he told the Statesman was a "clarification", hardly the meaningful apology you requested above. Both can be found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKDzTHvKRgw&eurl;=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3rEykLZLGo

These days I hear the terms "raghead", "camel jockey" or worse commonly to refer to almost any person of Middle Eastern, Indonesian or Indian descent, I hear the French and others constantly derided, and I observe that any critic of the administration's policies demonized as unpatriotic or as traitors. This is xenophobic, insular and paranoid. It is designed to appeal to the reptilian part of your brain to spawn fear and to put things in an "us v. them" framework, so people don't have to actually apply critical thought to the information presented. These tactics are enemy making tactics. And you only have to go to those right wing mouthpieces, like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter to know where it came from. The right has plenty to apologize for in the last five years, I don't expect it to start here. To you British readers, I do apologize. Some of us are really trying to fix things.

Sysiphus, first off I am not upset and don't feel the need for deep breaths. However, what part of my calling Mr. Anderson's remarks 'hurtful and outrageous" you think I intend as a defense to his behaviour? Like Mr. Anderson, you paint with a broad brush and you don't even have a microphone or a TV camera shoved in you face. You criticize the "us v. them" tactics and then go on to broadly bash the right as if you were the Mr. Anderson from the left. There have been many from the right that have been very vocal and upset over administration positions. The latest example is HR 563. There are 80 House supporters of this bill and not one who is blue. Failing to speak up for those who need support is as egregious behaviour as saying the wrong thing at the wrong time, in my opinion. Ignorance is no excuse, and, in and of itself, is not shameful. Acting upon ignorance in a despicable fashion is shameful, as is a host of other actions emanating from the defects of the human condition that impair wisdom. The shameful cowardice by our president and the blue House members to get behind HR 563 to help the border agents is one of those moments. I concur in your condemnation of Mr. Anderson's actions. Going beyond that you and I differ as to the cause and societal meaning, and the moral superiority of one side versus another. We don't have to go through fingering pointing and comparative fault analysis to realize that there are plenty of opportunities for many of all stripes and colors to sadly demonstrate this point.

OMG I've seen the enemy, and they is me. Interesting how comments on xenophobia bring up the subject of immigration in your mind. I would say willful ignorance is indeed shameful, which alas was Irwin's lost point. And what point was yours' at the end? That we disagree. I think that is apparent. I will learn to live with it.

Peace. Actually, my reference to HR 563 was sparked by CNN reporting on the bill today. Not to quibble, but the shooting of the drug smuggler was not about immigration policy.

What did I say?

The British media, the BBC, The Sun and many others invaded our neighborhood investigating a story on friendly fire as if it was intentional and covered up. They were on my property uninvited. They were looking for a close neighbor of mine. They settled for me.

After wading through them like crickets on a hot summer day for at least 48 hours one reporter finally pushed the right button. I let him have it. They published an impromptu statement. But they published the parts they wanted not the entire statement. Our press does the same so why be surprised.

They used my words of sucking your thumb during WWII. They conveniently left out the blame of all this thumb sucking was aimed at their foreign policy, dating to 1938 when their prime minister signed the Munich Pack with Hitler, a stroke of appeasement with a despot, only giving Hitler another year to ramp up his military and sign a non aggression pact with Stalin. Then about a year later Hitler went into Poland. And it was only then that Britian and France declared war. Up until that time appeasement was rampant all over Europe with regard to Hitler who took office around 1933. I also addressed this to the whole of Europe in general. I used history way back to WWII because I felt that was the last time we were on the brink of catastrophe.

This is the thanks we “Yanks” get for helping out in WWII, which in effect stopped Hitler, and then we stayed for decades staring down the U.S S.R.

Stalin had the same design for all of Europe as did Hitler, to own it. Stalin failed because we stayed with troops and weapons for decades. If that was not enough we came with our check book in hand and rebuilt the war torn region. The transfer of wealth from the United States was massive and I think heretofore unprecedented.

Now Europe and much of the world including some in our country is hot on the appeasement trail. Pull out, run, phase out, redeploy etc. History seems to be of no guide.

We didn’t pull out when we lost over 4000 Marines in about a month on Iwo Jima. We didn’t stop and pull out of WWII when we spent ourselves to near bankruptcy. We spent around 12 Trillion (with a T) dollars in today’s dollars during that period. That was called a World War, life and death situation, etc. I humbly describe our current situation as a World War that could last for decades.

How many 9-11s and or near misses do we need before we get the message that these folks are serious? Our elimination is their goal, they say it.

Eldon Anderson
Boise

Mr. Anderson, thank you for clarifying what happened. You took a swing at the British press that you feel provoked you but only hit the British military, their families, and British citizens while missing your target. Just like the pilot, your neighbor, that tried to take out only the enemy, a mistake was made and he missed too. How about recognition of the consequences for both errant actions and the harm done to innocents? A little contrition for those on the receiving end of your punch that was meant for the press would go a long way. In my opinon, the innocents are deserving of such recognition.

Mr. Anderson,

The problem with comparing the current situation in Iraq with the second world war is that Iraq never attacked us like the Japanese did on December 7. It was Al Qaeda that was responsible for 9/11 and the current administration dropped the ball on that by redeploying troops from Afghanistan to focus their efforts on this quagmire in an effort to finish the job Bush's daddy failed to do back in the early 90s...namely overthrow Saddam. One thing I wish that John Kerry had said back in 2004 was "where is Osama?" (and I hope whoever is the Democratic nominee next year pushes this particular issue).

Now, I'm not going to argue that Saddam was a wonderful person...he was a real SOB and you would think the world would be a better place with him gone. But like it or not, he maintained a certain amount of stability in Iraq when he was in charge, and we had him quite well contained following Desert Storm. Now, the genie is out of the bottle, so to speak, and the resulting chaos has our troops fighting a battle that can't be won militarily. As you yourself point out, they (both sides in Iraq) hate us, and the most likely scenario for victory comes only with the reassignment of our ground forces to the borders of their country (with the caveat of protecting the Kurds in the North from both groups) while we let them sort out all the ugly details of trying to become a unified country once again.

As for the firestorm from your "interview," I am sorry that their British media sandbagged you, and I hope you learned a lesson about choosing your words carefully when someone is shoving a camera in your face (and yes, I know that isn't easy to do).

The last few posts have made very interesting reading. Mr Anderson talks about Neville Chamberlin and his policy of appeasement. It's true that his administration was doing it's best to avoid war, but this must have been prompted in part by the fact that Britain had fought a four and a half year war against Germany twenty years before. This cost us 750,000 dead.

Mr Anderson talks about the U.S.A coming to the rescue of Europe as a whole in the Second World war. One of the usual accusations made by Americans against the British was lack of aggression, but the accusation made by the British is that America always came so late to the table, 1917 in the first War and 1941 in the second. Mr Anderson makes critisism of appeasment in the '30's, but America allowed Nazi Germany and Italy to run riot and leave Britain standing alone for two and a half years.

As far as the current conflict is concerned I agree that there is a war to be fought and won. It is the declared aim of fundamentalist Muslims that the black flag of Islam should fly in London and Washington. But I don't believe that this war should have been fought in Iraq. Al queda trained with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Bin-Laden is known to have planned 9/11 there. So why wasn't the full weight of the military thrown in there?

All we have done in Iraq, so far, is to destabilize the country, turn it into a potential new fundamentalist islamic base and paint ourselves into a corner in a war from which it's going to be virtually impossible to extricate our forces with any degree of honour. What is the current head count on ordinary Iraqi citizens by the way? (and I don't mean insurgents or ex-Sadaam fighters).

Postscript:
Mr Anderson also talks about the financial cost to America of WWII and peace keeping in Europe.

I thought that the U.S came out of the war hugely better off? Certainly, paying for the desperately needed Lease Lend tanks used to beat the Afrika Korps and the ships used to beat the U-boat threat left Britain bankrupt, with her gold reserve gone...I think we paid our way in both blood and coin.

Further to Mr Anderson's 'what did I say'.
What you said was that British Forces can't shoot, move or communicate. You also said that the U.S didn't need our damned help, just our co-operation.
So far I have read nothing but praise for the professionalism, morale and ability of British forces from U.S servicemen who have seen them operate. I'm sure these views are reciprocated by the British.
I would remind you, however, that no American casualties have been caused by friendly fire from British forces.
Also, British units continue to patrol and keep the peace in the Basra area. Both 3 Para and the Royal Marines have given a good account of themselves in Afghanistan, 3 Para winning a posthumous Victoria Cross in the fighting.
I must say though that I don't agree with the hounding and vitriol which you have been subjected to via the internet and telephone.

Mr Anderson,

But it WAS a cover up. The existence of that video tape was denied by both the US and British governments systematically until the DAY of the inquest into the soldiers death - 3 years later.

Shocking for the families involved wouldn't you agree ?

On your other points - your historical knowledge is blind and CNN'ish. Britain went into WWII because our allies were attacked. The USA was begged for support regarding munitions and arms but none of that was forthcoming until Pearl Harbour. Over 2 years Britain fended off Germany from its shores single handedly (yes US pilots helped along with many many other nations - I should note that 7 US pilots were involved in the Battle of Britain - 1 killed). If the USA was attacked Britain would be involved within a second - and you'd need Britain too. Ask any active serviceman in Iraq or any other conflict what role they ever see the SBS or SAS play - before ANYONE goes in......

Before anyone talks about the middle east and the current situation - you need to ask yourself why it all happened in the first place. Who put Saddam into power in the first place and why, who originally trained Al Qeada (aka the Mujahadeen) in the 80's, why do the muslims have such a vicious opposition to the USA - think Israel and read some un-censored literature on the subject.

AT the end of the day do not tar Britain with the same brush as the rest of Europe - it's a completely seperate entity in terms of policy.

As a student of history I have so much to add to the responses made by Mr. Fagan and Mr. Horowitz. Mr. Anderson I also think you take the wrong lessons from history. Your contentions regarding the comparison of the current situation to appeasment policy in the 1930s were brought to the national stage by Mr. Rumsfeld last October in a speech to veterans, so I'm not surprised that you parrot them. But for an eloquent albeit strident response to these comparisons please watch this rebuttal to that speech from Kieth Olbermann:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r98BByBrhdA

I also have real problems with religious zealots who insist that their way is the only way. But you seem to think that we are at war with all Muslims, whose world population borders on 2 billion, when in fact we oppose a small group of bearded mullahs whose ruthless tactics brought despotic order to a country no world power has been able to subjegate since Alexander. There is no doubt these are criminals of the most despicable kind but I submit that starting with the redeployment away from Tora Bora, our policies formulated to be a response to their horrors have done more to elevate them in stature and in numbers, and done more to impoverish us, than a rational and effective response to the threats posed by the people who perpetrated 9/11. There are many other approaches, and a good start would be to have a second look at the Iraq Study Group's proposals. Nobody today is suggesting we appease them or allow them into power just as nobody today should suggest that a couple of bearded old guys in caves were able to start WWIII. But we've taken our eyes off the prize.

Sysiphus, we are going way off the rails here. Perhaps it would be better to take the "global war on terror" debate to a new discussion. Why don't you write it and we will have a lively party? Please incorporate in your "couple of bearded old guys in a cave" notion the experiences of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and what her message represents to the rest of us. See: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2854474&page=1 I've heard her say that something like 20% of the 2 billion worldwide Islamic faithful are radicalized. This well of 40 million is the fount of Al Queda and their ilk.

I'm somewhat familiar with Ms. Ali and sympathize with her plight. I see that she now has a position with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, the same organization that is offering $10,000 to any scientist that will criticize global warming. No takers yet. Didn't see any reference to the numbers you cite though. That is not to downplay what you wrote about religious fundamentalism on the rise. Actually our policies furthering those numbers was precisely my point as well as a counter point to Mr. Anderson's suggestions above.

I also see that many continue the diatribe against France and other European countries as if their participation in the War on Terror was negligable. In fact, if any of these chest beaters were capable of independent research, you would find that France has spent a lot of capital and men in Afghanistan and the surrounding areas rounding up Taliban and Al-Queda. Germany as well. They knew the folly of Iraq, but those that supported such foolish notions as a boycot of French goods are unable to admit to their own deception.

In WWII, the French lost because of a dual ended mistake. They didn't think Germany would move through Belgium in a matter of weeks and they didn't finish the Maginot Line, nor protect it's southern border. It was a major mistake and lead to the deaths of many Frenchmen. I don't hear them blaming anyone else for their screw up, though.

The xenophobia, so apparent to many, comes from the attitude that the US is so much better and greater than anyone else in the world. The attitude that it's ok to shoot a presumed innocent Mexican in the rear, just because he's probably an illegal and therefore less than the Americans that shot him is a prime example of that xenophobia. The constant desire, as expressed by conservatives, to hold American life as more precious than any other is a constant reminder to the world of the ignorance that continues to instigate such blunders as Iraq.

Right now the pilot is innocent until proven guilty. I'll admit that the tape looks bad, but given a limited amount of information and knowledge of the exact situation there should be no declaration of anything but innocence, but only innocent until the proof is offered. He's not innocent because he's "American" and a "hero". He's innocent because he has the basic human rights that we should provide to everyone in the world.

I find your reference to Ms. Ali being part of AEI in the context of of the Exxon flap a cheap and degrading smear for what she has experienced. If I were Ms. Ali and women like her I would be as offended as the British military, their families, and British citizens find themselves to be over the comments regarding the tragic accident that spawned the article and these discussions. It's too bad none of the left leaning think tanks had the fortitude and courage to provide her a forum to address the plight of women like her and their human rights. As educated liberals, where's their sensitivity and symbolic expression of shame for this display of ignorance, indifference or cowardice? Regarding AEI, Exxon, and the $10,000 stipends perhaps you are a little out of date: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009649

Actually, Craig, your rebuttal and the link to the WSJ's opinion doesn't add up to a lot of evidence against the accusations.

The money is still there for lecturers to dispute global warming, with the distinct caviat that it's ONLY to dispute global warming. The AEI, as well, hides the true value of the Exxon funds by only claiming it is 1% of the total funding over the last decade. Thats hardly a convincing argument, right on the face.

I also see that the WSJ opinion attempted to smear Greenpeace with non-fact based accusations, the same as it is charging against those that "slandered" Exxon. Again, that makes for non-convincing argument.

AEI has a lot to be gained by continued violence in the middle east, they have been caught out by many "liberal" sites for their lack of honesty in many situations. They also have the same problem as many hawks, the inability to admit to mistakes and to adequately back away from policies that have only made things worse. Their reputation is on the line.

AEI continues to fund many Conservatives with little to no evidence of the individual's participation in areas of their expertise. It's called "wingnut welfare" for a reason. D'Souza, Santorum and many others continue to reap large sums of money from Conservative think-tanks for very little honest work. It makes Ms. Ali's case so much worse when her funding has to come from such a disreputable group.

'The British media, the BBC, The Sun and many others invaded our neighborhood investigating a story on friendly fire as if it was intentional and covered up. '

Well it's better than invading a country period, and in a sense yes, it was covered up by both the Pentagon and the MoD. Lance Cpl. Hull was good enough to give his life and quite simply both our governments weren't willing to give his family the unedited truth.

'I let him have it. They published an impromptu statement. But they published the parts they wanted not the entire statement.'

As you said 'you let him have it'. Please, please don't go moaning about publishing an impromptu statement. You're adding insult to injury. You're a big boy, if you're big enough to say it, be big enough to take it. Tell me ONE, just ONE news media who don't edit their stories. All media has an agenda, they teach you that in high school, it's not just privy to the British or the Americans.

'They used my words of sucking your thumb during WWII.'

I'm not even going to go there. You can justify what you said all you want, last week you DEEPLY offended 100s if not 1000s of WWII veterans, and no, your half hearted apology didn't do anything to sway that anguish. You are certainly in the need of a good OBJECTIVE history lesson.

'This is the thanks we 'Yanks' get for helping out in WWII, which in effect stopped Hitler, and then we stayed for decades staring down the U.S S.R.'

Oh dear, WWII would have been over way earlier if the US had waded in sooner. Thousands upon thousands more lives would have been saved. That's not to say I'm not grateful for America's contribution, of course I am. I am also immensely grateful to the Canadians, Irish, Scots, and Welsh as well (Yes, Britain is bigger than just England). The US HAD to get involved in WWII sooner or later, and might I add that you read up on the USSR's contribution to putting an end to WWII. You've not mentioned anything about their losses.

'If that was not enough we came with our check book in hand and rebuilt the war torn region.'

Yes, America did, and from a British point of view, we have paid our dues in full.

'How many 9-11s and or near misses do we need before we get the message that these folks are serious?'

What you are failing to recognise is that this war in Iraq has reaped incalcuable political damage on both our countries. The London bombings were a direct result of our involvement in Iraq.

Iraq never posed a threat to the US or the UK the way it was portrayed. Even Bush acknowledges their were mistakes made, i.e. the whole rationale behind going to war in the first place! I will reiterate for anyone who can't seem to separate the two; 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq or Saddam Hussein. However, I can't blame so many Americans for swallowing this theory after Bush and the right wing media did such a good job of selling this notion all the way through his re-election. It worried me watching mainstream America sucking up this distorted version of the truth. Afghanistan on the other hand was / is completely different. The US (and the UK) should have concentrated on flushing out Al-Qaeda there instead of letting it fester to the mess it is now. They should have nailed Bin Laden then. All Iraq has done is act as the biggest recruiting campaign for Al-Qaeda in the Middle East, Bin Laden must be over joyed! If you can't see that, then there's no hope.

'Our elimination is their goal, they say it.'

Ok, lets for one minute assume you're an average Iraqi who on average lives a meager life compared to the trappings of the Western world - 24 hour news - anything we want at our fingertips. The average Iraqi earns $2000 a year... How exactly would you take it if the world's biggest superpower turned up on your doorstep with 400,000 troops (over 1 percent of Iraq's population! How would you take it if North Korea turned up in Alaska with 5 million troops?) All the propaganda the US fought for in order to win hearts and minds was blown right out of the water by 1. initially trying to conquer Iraq, NOT liberating it and 2. Abu-Ghraib. And no, I'm not suggesting that these soldiers reflect the actions of all US military, but we all know how powerful the news is don't we? It does give the impression that the US can operate with impunity... which only reinforces the unilateral position the US took over Iraq.

The cavalier attitude is not dissimilar to how the US Government have acted over the death of Lance Cpl. Hull and one of our (ITN) journalists. It's the US Government (not us!) who simply will not co-operate (to their fullest extent) with any inquiries. You can't help but feel pessimistic when you have the so called beacon of democracy operating like this.

If elimination is their goal as you put it, I would begin by asking why? The mullahs didn't wake up one day and declare jihad for no reason. I would try and understand why so many Muslims in the Middle East feel so exasperated with the US (and UK) and then you might begin to find a solution to the problem. Not having the patience or flat out not wanting to find an answer is only going to lead to more death. When there are two opposing right-wing agendas going at each other's throats where is the hope?

In the West we celebrate life, just how exactly do you expect to win war against an enemy who is ultimately 100 percent committed to dying for their cause? In many instances they're honoured to do so! If you're willing to fly a plane into a building for your cause I doubt all the bombs in the world are going to sway their agenda, and by killing one you're recruiting two more. This war won't be won militarily... Well it could, but the deaths in WWI and WWII will fail in comparison.

Just a small side note, Mr. Anderson. Your "What did I say?" remark above completely negates that excuse for the apology you offered.

I'm pleased to see most of your countrymen, here and on Youtube think your an idiot, and even though most Brits won't bear you any ill will (we're better than that, you see) what phone calls and what letters you get are your own doing. It's all part of the freedom you so greatly admire.

My only hope is that Col. Kohntopp can address the family of the bereaved solider (yes, the dead solider which you completely elude to mention) to silence your stupid utterings.

As tragic an instance as it was, Col. Kohntopp showed remorse for a dead comrade. All you did was rub salt in the wound.

I don't mean to belittle your service to your country, but can I ask, was Vietnam really worth it? Just how much has Vietnam imposed on the rest of the world since 1975? Funny now how so much of the West now are flocking there... At least when the US left the north and south weren't blowing each other up which is exactly how Iraq will carry on for years to come.

And Saddam was convicted for the murder of 150 people... Sadly, that's getting to be the average daily death toll in Baghdad. How anyone can try and justify any of this is beyond reach.

Sheesh Craig. I merely pointed out that she now works for an organization who funds research to come to an already formed conclusion for the benefit of their patrons. I note that its fellows include Lynne Cheney, Richard Perle, John Bolton, and John Yoo all architects of the Iraq War. I'm pretty skeptical that they have some altruisic motive in hiring her. My point was not on her assertions, none of which you included, but rather what agenda her employer has in hiring her. Neither did I quibble with your unsupported numbers regarding the rise of fundamentalism. As I said, I sympathize with her and all people seeking to be free from oppression. How did I smear her again? You got the logic ad absurdum ala Marion going now.

And let me understand cause I'm confused, are you arguing in favor of bombing 2 billion Muslims into the stone age? Should it now be the foreign policy of the US to militarily stop oppression of women or all downtrodden? Cause if it is we have common ground. And we better start with Darfur and some of our supposed allies in this war like Pakistan. But please don't try and argue that she and those like her are the reason we're in this war now. That really would be offensive.

Mr. Anderson,

When you find yourself in a hole, the first rule for getting out is "stop digging."

Let's recap.

Scene 1: You mouth off to the British press in front of a camera. IMHO 95% of the anger from Britons and Boiseans here is about your attitude and the context, not about the intellectual content (or lack thereof) of your words. You insulted and betrayed Brits and Boiseans alike.

Scene 2: You talk to a Idaho Statesman reporter and are quoted as saying "I offer no apology, just a clarification to my remarks that were not prepared." That pretty much does away with the "devil made me do it" or the "I had a brain fart" or "I'm the victim of the press" defenses.

Scene 3: You offer a pseudo apology to the British TV camera. I interpreted this as "I am sorry I made a fool of myself on international television", not an apology for hurting or betraying people.

Scene 4: Your comments above on NewWest -- "I'm the victim of the press." Bullshit. You knew or should have known that a video camera is a vehicle for your comments to be heard by 55 million Brits and 6 billion across the world. ....and so much for your pseudo apology in Scene 3.

So, STOP digging. Here's what a proper apology from Eldon Anderson would look like:

"I am deeply sorry for offending and betraying the British people. I wish I could retract my words. At most, I spoke only for myself. I didn't get my facts straight. I was an arrogant boor." Optional: "I am lower than whale spit."

Boiseans, Brits, and the world deserve a true apology.

Vince Kuraitis
Boise, Idaho

Well said, Vince... Although I'm not aware of Scene 2! I probably don't want to know. If my blood is already at boiling point.

Sysiphus, like Mr. Anderson, you have an explanation rather than an apology. Like the BBC et al. I pushed your buttons on purpose to make a point and get a reaction. When I challenged your deeply held beliefs your emotions rose to the surface. You hit back not by striking me on the nose but by hitting an innocent party with your AEI, ala Exxon money, smear reference. Yes, inspite of your explanation it is what it is. My point being what I first wrote on this topic, "In my opinion, wisdom to know what to say, when to say it or refrain from comment at all is not predicated on education or the lack thereof. When wisdom is subjected to the pressure cooker of emotion or the reach for the political brass ring, people tend to say and do regretful things." All of us enlightened sinners need opportunity for redemption and forgiveness after being severly rebuked by fellow sinners sitting in judgment.

I also want to point out most Brits, well speaking from the ones I know were NOT so much angered by the killing of the soldier (which has since been hijacked by Anderson), but by the comments he made and the protracted inquiry by both our Governements to release the cockpit video.

'Friendly fire' regretably happens in all wars and I for one bear no ill will to the pilot. With the exception of one numptie, I feel sorry for everyone in this debacle.

While you'll read a lot of anti-American sentiment on Youtube etc. they're purely whiplash remarks. Any anger aimed at America should be interpreted towards the situation WE'RE in and the Government, not the people.

Sadly, Anderson just represents the stereo-typical ignoramus that belongs in Borat. The UK's got their fair share, the only difference is this bloke made it on the TV.

Yeah brilliant Craig (insert eye roll here). I typically research the bias of an advocate, don't you? But thank you for including me on your pathetic attempt to garner some sympathy for Mr. Anderson. I'm sorry I didn't oblige with something emotional. We agree that hiding behind the skirts of the oppressed is pretty sad.

Thanks Vince for bringing us back to the topic at hand and well said. Sorry for the protracted digression, it started as a response to the ridiculous claim by others on these comments that Mr. Anderson is a "victim", but there seems not much more here to plow.

Sisyphus, again I must ask you (since you failed to respond the first time) what part of my calling Mr. Anderson's remarks 'hurtful and outrageous' you think I intend as a defense to his behaviour? I'm surprised in all of your research you never found the difference between "understanding" and "sympathy."

I was offended by ignorant comments made by Mr. Anderson. At the same time, we have a lot of ill-educated people in Britain too. I know that this is only 1 American's view out of 300m. We have many dispicable characters in our country such as Nick Griffin of the BNP.

Although I'm only 21 years old, I was horrified to see that this man seemed to have little knowledge of world war 2. I know this has been said many times already, but if we had been sucking our thumbs, then Europe probably would have lost. Admittedly Neville Chamberlein did 'suck his thumb', he was the on tarnish during our WW2 history, he was quickly outed by Churchill and Eden who quickly declared war on Nazi Germany 1st September 1939 with Commonwealth, Scandanavia and France following suit.

Anyway it's reassuring to see that not everyone from this region of America agrees with his views. Also I've always wanted to visit this part of America, which I might well do this year.

If anyone is interested you may go to http://www.ktvb.com/news/ and see 10 minutes of uncut footage of what I really said. The Brits had essentially the same message but choose to do the hatched job on me you have been seeing. I have no apologies just clairification. P.S. I will stop digging when I get damned good and ready.

Mr. Anderson, cut or uncut, your comments were the bullets in the gun that went off with the trigger of your temper. They hit the wrong target. You offended many people that deserve better. A mistake is one thing but intransigence that continues the hurt is villainous no matter what contributory influences you point to. I have sought to understand what you said under the conditions that you said it. However, my sympathies are with the victims of your remarks. Consider holding yourself to account and take responsibility for what you did as measured by the outraged reaction to your words. Then consider making amends for their harm. Pointing to the questionable actions of the press is not exculpatory. Their bad act does not justify unleashing your own.

Oh boy... well where shall I start...

"They're a great people and they've got a good military."

Yes, our 'damned country' has many great people. A 'good military'. Yes thanks, we have that too. It's just so happens to be regarded as one of the finest if not the finest, per capita in the world. It kind of goes against your 'can't move, can't shoot, can't communicate' philosophy... Ironic isn't it. You said yourself Col. Kohntopp was given the 'all clear'. Just who had the break down in communication with who here?

"We helped in WWII"

Yes, yes you did and Britain will always be grateful, but this whole 'We saved you ass' mentality which I have a suspicion you subscribe to doesn't hold much weight here or in objective history books either. We are just as grateful to the Soviets, the Canadians to name but a few. We don't take our history from Hollywood.

"The reporter accused my friend of killing one of their citizens."

Well, he did? The reporter may have pushed your buttons but that seems to be the TRUTH... But as tragic as it is, it happens in war.

What you seem to miss is that there was no malice aimed towards your friend. Yes there was some frustration but the brunt of the anger here was why it took 4 YEARS for the wife of the dead soldier to see this video. Your government deemed the video too sensitive to release in the soldier's inquest... It's ok to send your sons and daughters to fight and die in wars, but we can't be honest with you when they come back in body bags.

Even though there was BAD American intel on coalition positions AND misjudgment on behalf of Col. Kohntopp, people here could understand it. I can understand it, it's war. I can't understand you.

"I'm sorry about him being shot and killed. I've all the sympathy in the world for that."

Bravo!!! That's the first time in nearly a week we hear you have empathy for the dead soldier. Amazing.

"We're in dire straits now"

And do you ever wonder just why we're in dire straits? How about this war has recruited more jihadists exponentially. You thought America was vulnerable after 9/11 try multiplying that number by the amount of CIVILIANS who have died in Iraq. The bombings in London were a direct result of our intervention there.

"We've got to get together and help one another."

Erm... Well we have been, right from the beginning. Behind the US, the UK has committed more troops than any other country... And I don't find your comments a particularly great morale booster either.

"No one can see it's cut n' paste journalism"

What other kind of journalism is there? EVERYTHING is edited and all media has an agenda. Did you expect a national news programme to devote 1 hour of time to your interview? It was British media?? I'm pleased KTVB indulged you your extra 10 minutes of fame.

"I make no apology, only clarification"

That's nice. So that half hearted apology last week, what was that? a fake one? You've not even got the balls to make a proper apology, how pathetic.

All the way through this interview you skip around it by saying "that it was an error on my part"... All that speaks to me is pure unfiltered arrogance. You still think you're right in what you said, simply because you won't be wronged. All you did wrong that day was speak your mind.

As I've said, I'm pleased to see the vast majority of YOUR own countrymen also have their opinions. My opinion is that you're a bigoted, arrogant, ignoramus, and I won't be quibbling over it. You represent the worst in America, you belong in Borat. You're a fine example of why so much of the world hates America - arrogance. It's always the minority that ruin it for everyone else...

You keep on digging Eldon, the rate you're going the entire war will have been fruitless, America will have all the oil it needs and then some!

Mike,

You compare Mr. Anderson to Borat. Temper, temper...there is no need to insult Borat here.

Vince K.

Mr. Anderson,

You spoke your mind. What you said was ignorant and insulting and when confronted with the backlash of your own words you turned to finger pointing and blame. No one twisted your words or coerced them out of you...heck you weren't even waterboarded! (jk)...at some point you must accept the reality that what you said insulted many people undeservedly and there is no one to blame but yourself. It's at that point that most men would offer a heartfelt apology and call it a day.

Do you feel Duped Yet?

A left wing blogger opined yesterday, in his lame contribution to the Friendly Fire issue, he wondered why I didn’t quit digging. I was obviously in a deep hole and getting deeper.

He can rest at ease; this is the last shovel full. The elite, liberal, politically correct media took the head fake along with the Brits and the rest of the European continent. Haven’t you noticed?? The whole issue is about me now, the world has forgotten why they where so pissed off. I thought this was about a friendly fire incident, and a big cover up. In your self righteous zeal you went for the retrograde action. The whole world suddenly went in the opposite direction. You liberal weenies fell for it.

The headline grabbing British press and you local press left wing heroes took the head fake. Included in that was our city council. Letters went flying overseas to Britain pleading for forgiveness for my intemperate remarks. You forgot what you were originally bunched up about. You forgot about my friend the pilot. You forgot about our military and in your mind just one more cover up. Don’t you see? The pack mentality took it hook, line, and sinker. You piled on for the kill. You had your red neck and you where going to finish him off.

I have waited a long time to get a chance at the media and to pull an inverse and diversionary move on them. To show them and the public what fluff headline grabbers they really are. To point out that there is not a journalist among them, and to show what a disservice they actually perform.

If offended any of you thin skinned and most proper Brits out there with my remarks please don’t take offense. You were just part of the bate, I needed the headline. But on the other hand if the shoe fits wear it.

Now what about the the deep hole my blogger friend thought I was in? All he has to do is look around. If he would have he would have seen all of you.

All I can say is thanks for being there.

Eldon Anderson
Boise

"Haven't you noticed?? The whole issue is about me now."

Read my thread above did you? Yes, congratulations YOU hijacked the story by showing:

1. NO REMORSE for the dead soldier
2. NO REMORSE for the widowed wife
3. NO REMORSE for his parents, and
4. NO REMORSE for the fact YOUR government couldn't be honest with the dead soldier's family

It was all about being a 'patriot' and defending your friend.

"You forgot what you were originally bunched up about. You forgot about my friend the pilot. You forgot about our military and in your mind just one more cover up."

No one forgot what we were 'bunched up about'. We had sympathy for the real victims here, the dead soldier, his family, and most importantly THE TRUTH. I would add many Brits (myself included) did even have some sympathy for your 'friend the pilot'.

"The pack mentality took it hook, line, and sinker... I have waited a long time to get a chance at the media and to pull an inverse and diversionary move on them... You were just part of the bate, I needed the headline. "

You're delusional. Eldon, don't flatter yourself. No one's listening to your "I got one over on them remarks now". You're reduced to writing your diarrhea on blogs. The ONLY thing you did was shame your country, nothing more, nothing less, and this continual rebuttal to your actions works wonders for your politics. When the VAST majority of people think you're wrong, do you think there might be any truth in that?

"If offended any of you thin skinned and most proper Brits out there with my remarks please don’t take offense."

Are you f****** kidding me?

You make derogatory remarks about our 'damned country'... our military which 'can't move, shoot or communicate'... Our veterans who were 'merrily sucking their thumbs in WWII'... AND THEN you clarify the situation by saying YOU'RE NOT SORRY!?!?!? We're the ones who are somehow wrong because we took offence!?!?!

"Now what about the the deep hole my blogger friend thought I was in? All he has to do is look around. If he would have he would have seen all of you."

Yes, that's right Eldon, and we're all here because of people like you. Trigger happy, shoot first, think later. Yes, it's people like you who've dragged everyone in the hole. In typical fashion, we didn't get a choice. Your descendants are going to have to live with your country's actions, namely your foreign policy for decades to come. You think we've got a problem with terrorism now? They've not even started, they're still getting over the 'shock and awe'.

How strangely pathetic and twisted. You did nothing of the sort, you don't have the intelligence to have accomplished such a feat, Mr. Anderson. What you did was bigotted and xenophobic and had nothing to do with your so called "head fake".

But do what makes you feel better, Mr. Anderson, because like you said, it's all about you.

But to all the "liberal weenies" here and elsewhere, we're more concerned with truth, even when that truth takes time to get out. The truth of this situation is known, now, and we've put the heat back on our Legislature to make sure nothing like this happens again. It probably will, because there are more people like yourself in positions of power and they enjoy their so called "head fakes" as much as you do.

There were no cries for the pilot's head, there was little blame towards the pilot at all. The blame is on our government for the cover up. You don't even realize that, do you Mr. Anderson?

You're an old child, playing your pointless finger pointing games, relishing in the blanket you believe you've pulled over everyones eyes. What you don't realize is how many people think you're just a pathetic person, worth little to the world, but given your 15 minutes of fame in which to embarass yourself and your country. Congratulations.

So it was all a ruse to show up the leftist media?....well O.K.
This is my last comment on the serious issue of friendly fire in general and the 2003 incident in particular.
Now that the A-10 pilot involved is a colonel and an instructor, I hope that he is ensuring that his fledgling pupil pilots learn that proper target identification isn't just an idea, it's the law.
Although he called twice on his controller for confirmation that no friendly units were around, and was told that there weren't, he should, in retrospect, have believed the evidence of his own eyes.
Orange panels on a vehicle meant friendly forces. It's easy to see what should have happened now that we have the full facts - and I don't like second guessing people in difficult dangerous and stressful situations like a ground attack pilot in a war. But something worthwhile should come out of this, and that means Col. Kohntopp should do his best to make sure that no pilot trained by him should repeat his tragic mistake.

Mike, regarding you #4 I have hearded it reported that the US military advised the British military after the accident. Don't know if, how, or the timeframe. Perhaps #4 should be addressed in a larger inquiry before asserting blame.

Yes Craig, the US Government did advise the MoD fully. What it also did was place a 'NO SHOW' label on the cockpit video. The reason being 'national security'. The American deputy ambassador clarrified this on another more objective news station by saying showing the 'video would put our pilots lives at risk by arming the enemy with intel'. I'm sorry, but different circumstances that argument is nothing short of farcical.

Our own government was complicit by saying the 'video never existed' even though they had a copy of it for years...

So in spirit what you're saying is correct, our government are to blame as well, but I wouldn't say equally. The British Gov are not behaving any differently than they have in years... The US Gov says 'jump' we say 'how high'.

The bottom line is that if we can send OUR troops to war WE can be as transparent as possible when it comes to investigating and reporting on their deaths. The ONLY time I would argue that this shouldn't be the case is if it risks putting other troops in harms way. To use an Americanism, I quite simply just don't buy it this time round.

Mike, I think Mr. Anderson plays Black Knight to your Arthur.

Black Knight: None shall pass.
Arthur: What?
Black Knight: None shall pass.
Arthur: I have no quarrel with you, good Sir Knight, but I must cross this bridge.
Black Knight: Then you shall die.
Arthur: I command you as King of the Britons to stand aside!
Black Knight: I move for no man.
Arthur: So be it!

Arthur cuts off the Black Knight's left arm.

Arthur: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
Black Knight: 'Tis but a scratch.
Arthur: A scratch? Your arm's off!
Black Knight: No, it isn't.
Arthur: Well, what's that then?
Black Knight: I've had worse.
Arthur: You liar!
Black Knight: Come on you pansy!

Arthur cuts off the Black Knight's right arm.

Arthur: Victory is mine! We thank thee Lord, that in thy mercy...

Black Knight: Come on then.
Arthur: What?
Black Knight: Have at you!
Arthur: You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine.
Black Knight: Oh, had enough, eh?
Arthur: Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left.
Black Knight: Yes I have.
Arthur: Look!
Black Knight: Just a flesh wound.
Arthur: Look, stop that.
Black Knight: Chicken! Chicken!
Arthur: Look, I'll have your leg. Right!

Arthur cuts off the Black Knight's leg.

Black Knight: Right, I'll do you for that!
Arthur: You'll what?
Black Knight: Come 'ere!
Arthur: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
Black Knight: I'm invincible!
Arthur: You're a loony.
Black Knight: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you! Come on then.

Arthur cuts off the Black Knight's other leg.

Black Knight: All right; we'll call it a draw.
Arthur: Come, Patsy.
Black Knight: Oh, oh, I see, running away then. You yellow bastard! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!

Hahaha, that's pretty good, Craig. I got a good chuckle out of that.

Sadly and ironically, it's dawning on me that the British TV crew successfully captured the "essence of Eldon" in their reporting and editing. They deserve an award for portraying one man's reality.

Step back, though, and you can also see what's great about America here. When stuck in a hole, it is our constitutional right to dig deeper, pour gasoline on ourselves, light the match and shout "you're all in a hole, not me."

I'm sure there's more to Eldon Anderson than what we've seen over the past week, but to be frank I've seen more than enough. His 15 minutes of fame went on 15 minutes too long... It just saddens me when numbskulls like this shoot there mouth off and then everyone gets tarred with the same brush.

I love America (well probably 70% of it ;-), I've been going back and forth for years. On balance I prefer it to the UK - things have gone too far left over here. I don't for one minute doubt this could have happened the other way round. There's good and bad in all of us, more power to the one's who can recognise when we do the latter and make a real APOLOGY for it.

Coming late to the debate (my nephew in Boise sent me the essentials) I'm a Brit living in Brussels and, apart from the Anderson contribution, have appreciated the wit and objectivity of those Americans who have restored my faith in their intrinsic humanity. I think Mr. Anderson is now a lost cause to his detractors because an examination of his latest contributions shows that, by their style, syntax and vocabulary etc. that he has found some scriptwriters ( or have they found him?) straight out of the Karl Rowe school of "progressive rebuttal". To carry on criticizing him, however objectively, will fall on the stony ground of the impermeable robot. At least it was all good reading until then, and I've enjoyed your messageboard. ¡Hasta la proxima!

Thanks Barrie. I agree it is fairly pointless to hope for an admission of wrong doing. But it was for you we were writing, not the robot or his excusers. While their programming is fairly simple they self destruct by saying the words I was wrong.

There has been no apology for these comments delivered on the Senate floor on 10/10 2002 as the justificaton for the war vote that followed:

"In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed."http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

The intelligence referred to stems from 1998 and preceeds Bush's presidency. Consider that as the explanations rather than an apology, like John Edwards issued, continues.

As another Vietnam vet, let me ask the British not to judge this country and this State by what Mr. Anderson has said. He shouldn't have said it, period. He shouldn't even have thought it, but unfortunately too many here in Idaho give succor to those kind of thoughts, however untrue or hurtful. We Idahoans all pay the price by looking like stupid bigots. Besides the tragedy and hurt to the family involved, the real issue is that (if memory serves me) about 20% of all casualties of war are from friendly fire. How long will it take us to learn that fact and find an alternate way of settling differences. In this case, the UN should have been allowed to finish it's job. Time to throw the dogs in Washington out and get a new strategy, something that involves all our allies and more importantly those nearby Iraq in the middle east. Apologies to the Brits, no hard feelings I hope.

@Craig - The reasons why we went to war are at this point pretty insignificant. Whether it was right or wrong, sexed up or not, it's beyond repair, no matter how many billions we pump into reconstruction. What is shameful is that even though the vast majority there as they are here are against this war, no one will be held accountable. What example of democracy is that? 100s, probably 1000s died under Saddam, 100,000s have died since 2003. No one's under any illussion that Saddam was a ruthless ***** but I can't argee that Iraq's better off without him. Yes, I know the seeds of democracy can take time. I genuinely hope I'm proved wrong, but I'm not holding my breath. I fear we've (metaphorically speaking) opened the gates of hell. Even if troops pulled out tomorrow it will turn into a breeding ground for anti-Western propaganda. Plus Iran's belligerency is more of a threat to destabalising the Middle East than Iraq ever was. How this is going to pan out is anyone's guess...

@ Vietvet - Thanks for your comments. What Eldon Anderson said was probably the most derogatory tirade aimed at us publically by an American that I can certainly recall. I'm fully aware we have our spats, our digs at each other which go back and forth. I had one friend in Georgia who was a staunch republican... We had many interesting conversations :) and yes, he would often joke about us being too liberal, but nothing came close to this shameful outburst. I think on 7/7 he was one of the first people to call me, and he was as right wing as it gets - Bush could do no wrong. Our politics may have been world's apart, but we could always agree on the importance and legacy of the friendship between our two countries and all that aside.

I'm sure, or I hope I speak for most Brits by saying that he holds himself in too higher regard if he thinks that this is somehow going to disrupt relations. There's far more that binds us than divides us... He'll be forgotten next week... The Brits would say "he'll be tomorrow's 'fish n chips' (news)paper". He's steadfast on his refusal to offer a real apology, so all his public legacy will amount to is that of an ignorant bigot. If that's what he wants to be proud of, if that's the way he wants it to be, so be it. It's no skin off anyone else's nose is it?

I agree the UN inspectors should have been given more time, but Bush wanted this war from the get-go, I don't think anyone can deny that. They could have gone over the country with a fine tooth comb and found nothing, it wouldn't have made any difference.

Going off topic, I went to the Wall in DC a few years back and it was truly a moving experience. While we were there, a guy came along with a bunch of flowers and stood by what I guess would have been his father's name for several minutes. He laid the flowers down, paused a few more minutes then just walked away. There was so much emtion bottled up in there. Just 10 minutes out of one day you see scenes like that... A little girl placed a picture she'd drawn of soldiers at the foot of the wall it read "Thank you for our freedom". I'll never forget it. 30, 40, 50 years on millions of people both there and in Vietnam are still paying the price for that war.

As someone who travels internationally for work, I resent comments from fools like Eldon Anderson. He speaks no truth and should have no audience, anywhere. I've met store clerks in Europe who know more about recent US foriegn policy/history than many Americans! The depth of ignorance in this country about our foriegn policies in the last 50 years is dangerous. Many Europeans are sick of the attitude espoused by nationalistic neoconservatives in this country. Attitudes like Mr. Anderson's are bad for business, make it harder to form alliances of any kind and make it more dangerous and difficult to travel for pleasure as an American.

As an infrequent visitor to America, I would just like to make a closing comment that I have always enjoyed my visits to your beautiful, exciting country, and that I hope to be able to return there in the not too different future.

Please spare a thought for Lance Corporal Hull and all the other British casualties of conflicts where Americans and British troops have fought alongside each other when you remember your own war dead on Veterans day...

At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them.

Mike, I too do not wish to revisit the reasons for going to war. My purpose in bringing Senator Clinton’s statement on the war resolution was to address other issues raised in the discussions here and link it back to the pilot’s tragic accident and Mr. Anderson’s buffoonery. Regarding Senator Clinton she is also noted in a Fred Barnes column from 2003. See:

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/157wjmhn.asp

‘PRESIDENT BUSH has a surprising defender of his contention that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction--Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. "The intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent" in concluding Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop a nuclear capability, Clinton said this morning. And Saddam's expulsion of weapons inspectors and "the behavior" of his regime "pointed to a continuing effort" to produce WMD, she added.
The senator said she did her own "due diligence" by attending classified briefings on Capitol Hill and at the White House and Pentagon and also by consulting national security officials from the Clinton administration whom she trusts. "To a person, they all agreed with the consensus of the intelligence" that Saddam had WMD.’

Please note that Senator Clinton’s DD included the intel from her husband’s security advisors. So what does that mean? She acted like the pilot in launching her position and vote on the war based on faulty intel from others, and that intel came from a variety of sources. In statements made in New Hampshire and elsewhere she attempts to explain, like Mr. Anderson, her statements and positions by pointing fingers. Unlike John Edwards, there is no apology. In the first comment following this article it was claimed, “What's the difference between an ignorant conservative and an ignorant liberal? The liberal is embarrassed by it.” This met with some applause. I find a lot of hypocrisy and Mr. Anderson in that remark and the response to it as that remark seeks to divide in a black and white fashion and declare the superiority of one versus the other. Senator Clinton is the embodiment of the highly educated liberal and very likely the next POTUS. In a couple of weeks Mr. Anderson will be forgotten but Senator Clinton is likely to be in the news everyday and will continue parsing her positions and pointing fingers.

I keep reading that liberals seek truth. In my opinion, that quest will be successful only when the arrogance and conceit of self-proclaimed superiority are recognized and basic respect is extended to others. Wisdom, and the exercise thereof, is not the sole province of an ideology or one’s life philosophy.

Craig, you might want to rethink the "embodiment of the highly educated liberal" before you make yourself look the fool. Hillary is less of a liberal than Bill was. Her stances are typically moderate to conservative. She backed the DOMA, she was unable and unwilling to push universal health care and her earlier non-partisan voting was definately moderate. Hillary doesn't care for the truth, she believes that the government entities will always provide the best assessments, the best intel, the best of everything and she has done very little questioning (at least in public) of the government's abilities and how the failures of those abilities has lead us here.

Most real liberals won't vote for her, despite your "intelligence" on the matter.

But the real liberals in Congress are those that have questioned the capabilities of the government. They have apologized, they have challenged and they are the ones that are prevailing, not Sen. Clinton.

Jay, Everyday I am humbled by life's lessons. I continue to be a work in progress. ;)

Continuous learning is a skill that few master. I congratulate you on your ability :)

I couldnt believe this when I saw Mr Eldons tirade .

I can understand he was getting harrassed but to accuse us British of being unable to shoot move or communicate is uninformed rubbish.

Although I was born after WW2 my Father carried the scars , mental and physical ,of his battle with the German military until his death. He as were millions of his countrymen and women 'not sucking their thumbs'

My Father and Uncles who fought would have been very offended by this.

How can someone of his age also with military experience, be so ignorant?

One thing about it...Idaho cannot hide from this prick's white-trash point of view. The Internet sees all, tells all....and what really surprises me is why hasn't the general economy punished Idaho for its decades of breeding morons like this? Or, are we coming to that shortly?

What an ignorant asshole. If he knew more about World War II instead of just hollywood's bullshit version of it, he would know that the country that WON the war for the Allies, without which defeat of Germany would have been impossible, was not the U.S. (or Britain) but the Soviet Union. They inflicted over 80% of Germany's military dead, destroyed vastly more German units than all other Allies PUT TOGETHER, endured what no other country could have endured (including the U.S.) and not only survived as a nation, but came back and WON. Yes, it was the Soviet Union who WON the war, America and Britain HELPED. Before any Duhmerican chimes in saying "Well what about the war against Japan?" I will say yes, America was more instrumental in beating Japan than anyone else, but Japan was BY FAR a MUCH lesser threat to the world than Nazi Germany. Not in the same ballpark, not even in the same league. (And who inflicted the greatest defeat on land against Japan? THE SOVIET UNION). Compared to the war on the Eastern Front (Germany, Romania, Finland, Hungary and puppet Slovakia against the Soviet Union), every other Allied effort against the Axis was a mere SIDESHOW by comparison. My advice to that asshole is to actually READ something about the war before opening his mouth about it, that is if he actually CAN read.

P.S.-- Mr. Anderson, how does it feel for the self-proclaimed "world's only superpower" to be getting the runaround in Iraq from poorly-trained or altogether untrained Rebels whose weapons are small arms, homemade bombs and an occasional mortar? Feel good? Feel powerful? How's it feel when you hear every time American infantry encounter two or three Rebels with rifles, instead of fighting like REAL infantry part of a REAL army and using fire and manouevre, the bread and butter of offensive infantry tactics, they instead cower (that means hide) and call in air support to do the fighting FOR them? The infantry arm is the backbone of any army; if an army's infantry is too chickenshit to use fire and manouevre then they don't deserve to be even called infantry, simple as that. Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it you ignorant piece of shit. The world is laughing at your high-tech pussified "military". How's it feel to be four years into this debacle (that means embarrassing disaster) and not even be able to control the road that goes from the airport in Baghdad to the Green Zone?? Feel proud of that?? America had better stick to picking on Panama and Grenada, because that's about all you can handle. Fucking laughingstock piece of shit country.

I think the proverbial horse is been well and truly kicked to death. Either he knows he spoke a load of diarrhea and doesn't have the conkers to apologise, or quite simply he's delusional. Either way, it's doesn't really matter... I haven't read a single argument on any website which supports what he said and even if those people do exist they're in the minority. Common sense has prevailed and picking on America because of one man's actions is flat out silly. No one's laughing about anything and I'm quite certain we've got as many ignorant pricks in the UK. As I said before, the only difference is he made it on the TV.

America is a pile of shit, face it. The "world's only superpower" is 1.a police state, 2.the world's biggest debtor nation, 3.an international pariah, 4.the industrialised world's most shockingly ignorant country, bar none, 5.the world's biggest hypocrite, never living up to even 10% of what it claims to be, yet somehow never tiring of telling the rest of the world how to live, and 6.thankfully well on its way to becoming a third world wasteland that nobody cares about anymore and is no threat to anyone except its own mouth-breathing sheep-like people, if i may stretch the meaning of the word "people".

Mr. Realist,
...I'm not sure that I see a lot of difference between you and Eldon Anderson...perhaps you should stop digging too.

Well as he said himself, he has an opinion and you're entitled to yours, but I think you're in danger of sounding like him... Not that I want to get into slanging match with you, I can't be arsed. All the arguments you're listing stem from the government, not the people. If you want a laundry list of our government's shortcomings I could ream one to you. Don't base your opinions off what you see on TV and read in the papers. Live there and you might have a different opinion. There's good and bad in BOTH but on its way to becoming a third world wasteland... don't think so.

Mr. Realist, such courage coming from someone who doesn't use their real name. You are at least one wrung lower on the ladder than Mr. Anderson. As our British friends might say, "Bugger off!"

I dont agree with Mr Realist , -he sounds like Mr Anderson.
But I also see it born of frustrated anger in the UK where we are continually told that we have 'A special relationship' (Tony Bliars words) with the US. Then we go to 'U tube' and look at any video concerning British forces and see comments of many Americans there:

'You Limey Pieces of Shit'
'If it wasnt for us youd be speaking German'
'We saved your ass in WW2'

Usually by ignorant under 20's but often by older people as well.
And it just SEEMS that Americans havn't a clue what is going on in the outside world. Andersons Tirade just reenforces the perception..

So we are in a War allied to our US friend, but when we see comments such as 'Cant move shoot or communicate' we wonder what the hell we are doing there..
Its nothing new. I remember Americans bellittling British forces in the Falklands, as well as all the other conflicts-

'We couldve thrown the Argies out in 3 days'
One American told me that the Falklands
'was a minor Police action'

As for the War of Independence

'We kicked your Limey Butts'

Surely many of the Revolutionarys were of British stock?

Of the War of 1812:

'We kicked your Limey Butts'

oh yes and our 30 year war against the IRA , another War on terror- where did most of the financial aid come for these 'Terrorists' (or Freedom fighters depending on your views)

So when our citys were being bombed and innocent civilians were being killed all we saw was triumphant crowing from across the pond from some Irish Americans with a romantic notion of Ireland straight out of Walt Disney..

So yes we have a lot to be angry about.

Anderson is just fuelling the flames, I just wish he had the guts to hold his hands up and apologise but it seems he actually believes his rhetoric..

The reference to the 'special relationship' is quite an interesting one because you hardly (if ever) hear it mentioned in America. Now, Americans residing in the the UK, including the diplomats are keen to emphasise how politically we're best friends. Personally, I think it's a load of rubbish (politically) and if it does exist it exists only one way. We do what we're told, the political clout of Britain (or anyone else) with America at this point is non-existent... America might listen but ultimately it will do what it wants. Blair didn't coin the term, he merely made reference to it (as did Bush ONCE I think when Blair was at a State of the Union address). I'm not going to skip around the fact that Bush has done a dreadful job of listening to America's friends and it has caused a lot of unnecessary political resentment... I remember driving up I-75 in Florida a few years back and someone had PAID to have an advert plastered on a bill board saying 'Ban All French Goods'... simply because of the veto. Wonder if he still thinks that now? He was probably a republican, so he probably does :) The 'special relationship' goes deeper than politics anyway... If you consider language, culture, business, family ties, European American roots, foreign investment, (the list can go on) then I think we get a truer sense of its meaning.

The cock fighting (which is what it is) that goes on goes both ways. Mr. Realist's posts are evidence of that, and Youtube's littered with Brits bashing America because of Anderon's remarks. Both countries are fiercely patriotic and when I see stuff like this it reminds me of two brother's (or cousins) squabling. America's quick to point out how they saved our asses in WWII, we're quick to tell them how ignorant they are... And to be fair there is SOME truth in arguments, but we're both guilty of generalising with blanket statements (which only serves to stigmatise and alienate).

The military's not much different... I've heard war stories here about 'dumb yanks... all the gear with no idea' and quite the contrary. I'm sure the same is said about our military (although I don't think we can ever be accused of 'having all the gear', which is another strategic point in Britain's relationship with America.)

Northern Ireland I'm completely with you on. Americans did (openly) sponsor terrorism there. Although like you said it was always referred to as 'freedom fighting' by the people who backed the arms smuggling. I wouldn't be surprised if Blair pulled a few strings with Bush on closing arms loops in NI. To his testament NI is a different place compared to what it was 10 years ago, and no I'm not saying it's all Blair's doing, but I also don't quite believe the IRA and a change of heart either.

So yes, we have a lot to be angry about, but we have a lot to be grateful for too, and that works both ways.

Anderson's a blip, a Borat caricature. He's as simple as that.

Yes your right Mike, Cock fighting it is. Both our peoples are a tough and patriotic lot with shared experiences through our history, not always pleasant ones. .. . Sites such as U tube allow people to vent their frustrations to one another without the fear of instant physical retribution...
However the possibly mythical 'special relationship' is a one way street. And Bush simply has to say Jump while Tony says 'How high' (Leash in mouth and tail wagging).

This is what hacks me off personally- I spent 23 years on the high seas and visited the USA many times throughout the 70's and 80's- always found the people great and interested in us and always asking about 'little old England', we were invited in to their homes and I can honestly say I have no unpleasant memories of my visits, quite the opposite. Mr Andersons is an attitude I never saw in those days, so it was a bit of a shock.

Maybe tempers are on edge with this bloody stupid war.. I recall my late Father telling me of the spats between Brits and 'Yanks ' in England during WW2-'Over sexed, over paid, and over here' was the phrase used by UK servicemen of their much richer, more confident allies..and endless argument and drunken barroom brawls about who was ' the better army' etc-- nothing changes, only these spats have moved on to the internet today.

...looks like the lithium has kicked in....

http://www.idahostatesman.com/106/story/71704.html

It's important to remember though that Bush and Blair only represent a fraction of the time in the so called special relationship. I am optimistic things will change for the better (let's face it, it can't get much worse - thank God Bush climbed down with the Iranian threat the other night, but that's still not settled by a long shot), and with the world moving faster towards global interdependency I hope we see real special relationships coming into frution.

I'm like you, I've spent years in the US and for the most part never had a problem and the people are VERY friendly and very welcoming, which is why you can't let your experiences be eclipsed by morons like Anderson.

I think to some degree a bit of sibling rivalry doesn't hurt, it keeps us on our toes, just so long as the mainstram doesn't turn into the kind we've heard recently. People can joke about my teeth or my funny accent... It's better than blowing someone up.

Not exactly sibling rivalry, but I had a moment of impish devilment many years ago. A business associate and I were returning from a round of golf at Swinley Forest: http://www.top100golfcourses.co.uk/htmlsite/productdetails.asp?id=68 We were staying at the Intercontinental in London. The traffic was paralyzed as we drew closer to the hotel. However, if we stayed with the taxi we would have missed our dinner engagement. So we hopped out with our golf bags and still dressed in our golf attire. We merely had to cross one of your beautiful expansive parks and a couple of streets and we would be back at the hotel. A thought came over my mind and I suggested we put our golf shoes back on and take out a club to carry in one hand. As we traversed the part I would occasionally ask, "Pardon me, but have you see my ball?" This was usually met with a horrific look that betrayed thoughts of "cheeky American bastard" but with a verbal response of "No, haven't seen it." One of London's finest finally caught up with us. We explained the joke and he sent us on our way with a warning not to attract any more attention.

Yep, no one was taking the joke... But that's London for you :) Come up north to Royal Lytham (where I live) and you'd get invited in for tea and scones...

As I was reading that I thought of this:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2144049.ece

I'm not saying the two scenerios are the same, but there's something in there... 'Lost in Translation' comes to mind.

Ah, the 'Boss Hawg' confrontation. The good professor didn't realize that money talks louder and more clearly than words. Like the professor, I would have been tempted to tell the unidentified officer to "Piss off!"

It's actually a pretty funny story if you can get around the insaneness of it all... I think even he sees the humour in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENCa43r9jmY

'And, apparently most distressing of all, he had his box of peppermints confiscated.' LOL

'This young man kicked my legs from under me, wrenched me round in what I think is a sort of a judo move, pinned me to the ground, wrenched my arms behind my back, handcuffed me... Naturally I was bridling. I had five burly policemen pinioning me to the ground, pressing my neck with really very severe pain.'

Joe Cobb, of the Atlanta police department, which held an internal inquiry into the incident, said: 'The level of force was dictated by the professor, not by the officer.'

Hmmm... I think someone is telling porkys here...

This is an item of evidence I should like someone to check, regarding the action of the two pilots:

had they not been told to attack insurgents/enemy DUG IN ON THE OPPOSITE BANK of the river from the road they attacked.

The pilots attacked A MOVING COLUMN OF ARMOURED MILITARY VEHICLES ("Saracens").

Have the insurgents anywhere in Iraq ever had more than one (possibly two at most) vehicles at one time when en route somewhere?

Have the insurgents ever had vehicles other than civilian-style cars or pick-up trucks?

Why did the pilots not know that a line of armoured vehicles could not be insurgents' vehicles?

What appropriate training for THIS operation had the pilots received?

I'm not entirely sure of my facts here but I think I have it pretty straight. The A-10's controller thought that the aircraft were over another target 800 metres away. The vehicles were Warriors (British APC's similar to the U.S Bradley). The attack happened in 2003, during the initial assault on Iraq and against Saadams Iraqi army (not insurgents). It's quiet possible that a column of Iraqi army vehicles would have been targetted. The Iraqi's used mostly Soviet vehicles and weapons. Whether this column looked anything like soviet built Iraqi vehicles from the air and at speed I don't know. Vehicles in the desert throw up a lot of dust and are uniformly sandy brown in colour. The pilots did see orange panels and said so on the tape. They checked twice for friendly forces with their controller and were told none were in the area. They mistook orange panels for rocket launchers? and attacked.

Thank you, to "fagan 2-21-07".
If your particulars are correct then this incident took place during the initial stages of the SURPRISE invasion of Iraq whan all the advantage was with the attacking forces; there can be no excuse for any supporting aircraft to be ill-informed about the precise identity, movements and positions of all their own forces.
The rate of advance is principally under the control of the surprise invader, strategically and tactically.
There is always the chance that your ground forces are moving faster or slower than planned.
Therefore your Artillery at the rear (and this of course includes assault-aircraft) MUST be sure of its target or else it must HOLD ITS FIRE.
The same does not apply in quite the same way when retiring or falling back (possibly in disorder).
The present matter looks rather like a contravention of one of the most elementary rules of battle, by a pilot who was unfit to be sent into action.
Was he not courtmartialled for his improper over-excitement causing him to spray his own soldiers with fire?
Or are the allies of the USA not regarded as their own people?
It is noticeable that (according to what we are told) the USA forces seem to be alone in killing their allies.

If you watch the cockpit video in full, the pilots weren't 'Gung Ho'. Certainly there was a terrible 'charge of the Light Brigade' type misunderstanding between the controller and the pilots.

I don't know whether the Unit involved (Life Guards I think) got 'ahead of the mob', in any case, I'm not defending the pilots but it does look like a genuine fog of war incident. As other people have said, the real guilty parties are the two governments for supressing the video evidence.

Colonel Kohntop is now an instructor of other U.S.A.F pilots. As I said in an earlier post, I hope this tragedy means that Col. Kohntop ensures his pupils fully understand the importance of full varification of a target.

But this is easier said than done, should they have gone lower to check? If they had, then they would have been vulnerable to AAA fire from the potential target.

It's true that all air-to-ground friendly fire incidents have involved U.S airmen, but we rely so heavily on them for air support. If we want to reduce the risk we should have more R.A.F units there.

Recently the British commander in Afghanistan complained about lack of air cover, the M.O.D sent one, that's ONE additional Harrier.

If you watch the cockpit video in full, the pilots weren't 'Gung Ho'. Certainly there was a terrible 'charge of the Light Brigade' type misunderstanding between the controller and the pilots.

I don't know whether the Unit involved (Life Guards I think) got 'ahead of the mob', in any case, I'm not defending the pilots but it does look like a genuine fog of war incident. As other people have said, the real guilty parties are the two governments for supressing the video evidence.

The pilot involved is now an instructor of other U.S.A.F pilots. As I said in an earlier post, I hope this tragedy means that this pilot ensures his pupils fully understand the importance of full varification of a target.

But this is easier said than done, should they have gone lower to check? If they had, then they would have been vulnerable to AAA fire from the potential target.

It's true that all air-to-ground friendly fire incidents have involved U.S airmen, but we rely so heavily on them for air support. If we want to reduce the risk we should have more R.A.F units there.

Recently the British commander in Afghanistan complained about lack of air cover, the M.O.D sent one, that's ONE additional Harrier.

The "Eldon Anderson Aberration"

This incident has given rise again to that hoary old myth about the USA "stopping Hitler" and "saving Britain from invasion" (e.g. "If it were not for the USA the British would now be speaking German").

The following timetable and statistics may help to improve educational standards in Idaho.

WW2 was declared on 3 September 1939.

Mussolini joined Hitler in 1940 asking to be allowed to send three bombers to bomb Britain along with the swarms of German Junkers, Heinkel and Dornier bombers already filling the skies over England (throughout summertime 1940 by day, and winter 1940-1941 at night) preparatory to invading Britain.

The French had already handed their navy (and their country) over to Hitler.

The British population prepared to resist the certain German invasion.

Aerial photographs showed the coast and ports of N. France lined with landing craft and German troops rehearsing.

Churchill told the British mere resistance was not enough and that each should try to kill two invaders before the invaders killed them (his words were "we must each try to take two with us when we go").

During 1941 the bombing became less constant.

Then it became sporadic.

It was clear that the tiny RAF had eventually demolished or demoralised the huge Lufwaffe.

Meanwhile, British forces in N Africa attacked and drove the entire Italian Army out of Abyssinia (Ethiopia) and back across Libya (look at a map!) to Tobruk and Benghazi, taking prisoner 1000s that were not killed.

Hitler then sent in the German heavily-armoured Afrika Corps under Erwin Rommel and they drove the British back as far as El Alamein.

Gen.Montgomery took over the British 8th Army (from Gen.Ritchie we think) and drove the Afrika Corps and Rommel back out of Libya and into Tunisia.

It became clear that Hitler had abandoned all hope of a successful invasion of the UK.

Hitler had been stopped.

Britain and the Commonwealth had stopped him.

Nobody else.

(Later he attacked the USSR. That German offensive was ultimately swallowed up in the Russian winters).

The USA was still not at war with anyone.

The USA was making a fortune selling munitions.

Then (Dec 1941) Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

Then Japan, Germany and Italy declared war on the USA.

The USA NEVER declared war on Hitler.

FDR was far too worried about ensuring his re-election as president!

In 1942 A some raw USA Marines were sent to Tunisia to "assist" the British 8th Army mop up the rest of the German Army in N. Africa.

Throughout WW2 the USA always had more troops at home than overseas. Less than one third were overseas at any one time.

The number of British and Commonwealth land forces fighting the Japanese in WW2 was DOUBLE that of the USA.

On D-Day 1944 when France was invaded from Britain to start liberating Europe from Hitler, British, Commonwealth and USA units lost 6000 soldiers IN THE FIRST DAY.

The French leaders and press from DeGaulle onwards have insisted that the French liberated themselves. In their 60th anniversary celebrations the USA and Britain were not even mentioned. This is known as the Eldon Anderson approach to History.

HES

Unfortunately, I'm afraid far too many Americans take their 'history of world war 2' from the likes of Stephen E Ambrose.

A lazy incompetent and inaccurate 'historian' with a small 'h' who is thankfully no longer with us.

His 'work' in literature, film and TV probably did more to airbrush the British and Commonwealth war effort from popular history than than that of any other individual.

Steven Spielberg was a particular admirer of Ambrose, which goes a long way towards explaining his warped view of world war 2 history.

I don't know much about Ambrose... I only saw the Band of Brothers mini-series (which I thought was pretty good). How accurate it is, I don't know. I just took it as a fictional piece of work which was loosely based on fact... I know Speilberg was involved with BoB and obviously Saving Private Ryan.

We had this debate when the movie came out - "Where were all the other allies?". I remember being pretty p'd off about it as well.

As someone pointed out to me, this is branded entertainment. The movies, the mini-series, even the books by Ambrose if you get down to it are not intended to be objective history, it's entertainment. They're the works of (mainly) Americans which were bank rolled by American money. It's hardly surprising that they feature the 'American story'. Stuff like BoB and SPR don't slur the 'others' (well maybe the Nazi's a bit ;) who were involved, they just don't really mention them.

If Britain or Canada or any of the other Commonwealth countries had the money and the will, there's nothing stopping them putting out a 'good' modern film of their war effort which could be devoid of the American involvement.

There is a danger though from Hollywood, well it's not Hollywood's fault, I would say it's more down to teaching in schools, and that's teaching kids objective history.

As a movie, U-571 was entertaining, it wasn't great and it wasn't bad either. I'm sure if you know the plot line and the true history you'll forgive me for being a bit peeved again. (I've learnt my lesson now). This movie was touted as being based on true events even if it didn't hold that claim outright... For maybe 6 - 8 weeks there were tens of thousands of American school kids 'learning' an 'alternative history'.

And that's the danger with entertainment and history, not that there's anything that anyone can do about it (nor should they). We know that Spielberg wields considerable clout, not just in movies per-se but in American popular culture in general. Although I obviously couldn't say for certain, but I would guess more kids would be inclined to watch SPR, BoB, Pearl Harbor etc. on DVD rather than sit and read an objective history textbook. In the process it blurs the facts to a mainstream popular culture.

So rather than blame Hollywood or the people for believing 'Hollywood history', I would look more to the governments, education systems and the parents because that's who should hold the clout in teaching kids, not Hollywood. They only serve one purpose and that's to make money.

Harrow English School, perhaps a little reflection on the events from The Churchill Center might be more constructive. http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=326

"Third, Churchill was a passionate believer in the fundamental friendship and partnership of the British and American peoples. He was the son of an Anglo-American family. On the day in 1941 when it became clear that the United States would add its might to the war effort, Churchill announced that he went to bed and "slept the sleep of the saved and thankful." Churchill above anyone else forged the unique British-American partnership which turned the course of history in the Second World War. And I believe that Churchill, with his strong sense of the sweep of history, would be proud and impressed to see the way that this enduring alliance still flourishes today.

Around us we have the evidence of a rich and enduring partnership as friends and allies in the world. It is a partnership of shared purpose: the United States stood with Europe through the long years of the Cold War. Today, Britain and the United States are working together still, where our shared values and interests are at stake around the world. In Europe, our alliance in NATO is, and must remain, the cornerstone of our security. In the Persian Gulf, British and American pilots are working together in the perilous skies above Iraq. In the Balkans our troops work together to prevent the horror of war from returning to the European continent.

Our alliance is also, and must remain, a partnership of common equipment and ways of working. Churchill himself laid the foundations for sharing technology across the Atlantic: sonar, radar and nuclear technology. These mutual transfers still bind our forces today. The Royal Navy and the U.S. Navy, and our submarine services, have enduring ties, built on the 1958 nuclear agreement.

Using common equipment is vital for the future of our combined operations. For both sides it is good military policy and it is good economics. Over the last six months Britain has committed to nearly $4 billion of U.S. defence systems ranging from aircraft to missiles.

Lastly our partnership, United States and United Kingdom, is a partnership of shared service. Our armed forces work together on a daily basis. Some 57 British naval officers serve with the U.S. Navy, acting as U.S. officers under U.S. command. A total of 142 British personnel serve in this way across the United States services. A similar number of American men and women serve with UK forces. I am delighted that navigating officer Lt. Angus Essenhigh RN, is with you serving on the USS Winston S. Churchill. We are privileged to have his opposite number serving on HMS Marlborough. We trust Lt. Essenhigh will be the first in a long line of British officers serving in this ship.

Cdr. Franken, you have an outstanding ship named for an outstanding man. We all owe Winston S. Churchill a debt for his leadership, for his advocacy of a strong transatlantic alliance in defence of freedom. We have all inherited the cause of freedom that Churchill proclaimed, and the partnership Churchill helped to build. All of you on this ship should be proud to sail in that tradition."

-----
The last I checked the peoples of our two countries continue to shed blood together in common cause in the pursuit of victory. May we all experience "the sleep of the saved and thankful," while relflecting on the united effort that it takes.

The trouble is that a piece like Saving Private Ryan is so well done and impressive that it becomes the 'perceived' gospel to millions.

After seeing that film I remember saying to a 35 year old guy: 'of course, the British and Canadians were fighting that same battle, more successfully, further down the coast'. His answer? 'really, I didn't know that'. In SPR Spielberg not only ignores the British and Canadian beaches, he discards the fact that 2nd Rangers were taken into Omaha aboard Royal Navy crewed landing craft, many of which were lost with their crews.

He also makes that same old slur against Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery, that he 'wasn't rated'. This in spite of the fact that Monty led the army which first beat the Germans, the British 8th, and that he masterminded not only Overlord, but also the breakout carried out by Patton, 'Cobra'.

U-571 was such bull that it doesn't rate comment. The first Enigma machine was taken by the Poles and the first code books were recovered from a captured U-boat by a Royal Navy officer from a British destroyer.

If you can excuse Spielberg as 'just an entertainer' and Amrose as incompetent, you can't make the same excuse for S.L.A Marshall. Marshall was an out and out liar.

It was Marshall (the official U.S D-Day historian) who first perpetrated the lie (plagiarised by Ambrose) that at least one British crewed landing craft was taken into the beach at Omaha by a Ranger officer holding his pistol on the British helmsman. This has since been proven to be a lie.

Conversely, few Americans know that at Kasserine Pass, where an inexperienced American army broke, British troops were pushed in to stop the rot, at great cost.

Also, the reason why Montgomery is so hated by the American military, is that at the battle of the bulge, while the American high command was esconced under massive security in their headquarters, he brought his army down from the north to roll up the German advance from the flank. All of this is historic fact and can be verified on the net.

>> The trouble is that a piece like Saving Private Ryan is so well done and impressive that it becomes the 'perceived' gospel to millions. <<

I completely agree with you, and that is the danger of Hollywood. It's this 'perceived history' which gives rise to the ridiculous mentality of 'We saved your ass in WWII'.

>> In SPR Spielberg not only ignores the British and Canadian beaches, he discards the fact that 2nd Rangers were taken into Omaha aboard Royal Navy crewed landing craft, many of which were lost with their crews. <<

Again, I share the frustration but to be fair, Spielberg never claimed to be a history professor, he just likes to dabble with it in his movies. Having said that, for all the success he's had out of making movies in the UK, it would have been nice to see him tip his hat to the Brits somewhere along the way.

I think what is even more dangerous is 'blurring the edges' though. In the opening to SPR we're given the truth "Omaha Beach, June 6 1944". We're then presented with 20 - 30 minutes of imagery reflective of objective history. It then takes a detour into fiction WITH elements of truth in it.

As far as I know, I've never read anything by Marshall so I couldn't comment but if official historical accounts are being touted as truth and it turns out they're not, well there's no excuse for that. It wouldn't surprise me though, sadly older American history books do have a poorer record of being objective (Custer and the Indians for example)

I just think that authors and film makers should bear some responsibility for the work they put out to a mainstream audience. It's not their fault by any means and it's not going to change and that's simply because to the majority people in the West are more interested in money, icons and celebrities than they are in history and ethics.

Excellent points made by the last few posters..

I got very annoyed with the recent Hollywood attempts to change history. But later I laughed so much at the feeble attempts..

Even funnier than Brad Pitt trying to play Achilles..

I have heard that a remake of 'The Dambusters' will feature at least one American in a Lancasters crew attacking the Moene and Eder Dams..

Buts thats hopefully an internet myth.

On the suggestion that there is to be an "Eldon Anderson" version of the heroic "Dambusters" with a fictional USA citizen as one of the Lancaster crews: if Hollyork
(http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed41.html)
makes such a film itwill have to be Guy Gibson the C.O. of the operation who is transmuted into being American because
Hollyork would never give the sole USA citizen a subordinate rank.

Now this is another case where history is so blurred. I'm going to be a real anorak here. I believe the new version of the Dambusters is being made by Peter Jackson (director of the Lord of the Rings). He is a New Zealander and many of 617 Squadron's crews were Australians and New Zealanders, so with luck he will make a good honest job of it.
Now here's the blurry bit! I think one of the Lancaster skippers was in fact an American flying with the R.A.F! I'll try to find his name through google, I think he was involved in the unsuccessful attack on the third, Sorpe dam.
It's important not to forget that quiet a few brave young Americans flew with the R.A.F. A small number flew in the Battle of Britain, more flew with the Specially formed 'Eagle' squadrons with fighter command, others flew with bomber command.

Here he is...Wing Commander Joe McCarthy, D.S.O, D.F.C and bar.
Flew T-Tom as part of a five aircraft flight against the Sorpe dam. All four other aircraft were shot down en-route to target.

McCarthy made a perfect bomb run on his third attempt in difficult conditions, but his bomb alone caused insufficient damage.

A very brave and skilled American pilot.

Note I didnt mention the Sorpe Dam :)

Of course American pilots are brave- Remember the Yanks who fought along side the RAF in the Eagle Squadron, in no way I am decrying their achievements but it is the young Hollywood History changers I am getting at- history changed simply to increase Box office receipts in the US.
Unfortunately a few Americans see these films and believe it 100%

So we get
'
If it wasnt for us you would be speaking German comments'

I was born near a USAAF base in Suffolk, the home of a Mustang Fighter Squadron in WW2- the great Chuck Yeager flew from there so I was brought up with stories of these brave fliers

And it goes without saying that without the Kiwis, Aussies, Canadians , Poles , Czechs etc the RAF would have had a much harder task..

But to replace the part of Guy Gibson in any remake with an American would be the height of stupidity.

I agree, actually substituting real British figures with American actors would be shameful. A lot of people decry the Great Escape, as it used American actors although no Americans were actually involved in the event. I think the director was shrewd however. He knew he needed big '60's names to draw a world wide audience. So he cleverly cast James Coburn as an Australian, James Garner as an Eagle Squadron pilot and Charles Bronson as a Pole (the real escaper was Lithuanian).
There were enough big British names to balance it out, the film has become a classic and the story is now known to a vast number of people around the world. I think I can forgive the director for 'bending' history in this case, but many can't.

"The Great Escape" -surely that was the one that ends with a football match (Association Football!) and that film/movie is total fiction and has never been offered as anything else!
Please do not confuse genuine fiction with anything that really happened, such as the escape of about 75 RAF officers from an OFLAG (LuftOflag?) most of whom were recaptured and then lined up and murdered.
KS

"The Great Escape" was not the frolicsome football film which had a different title!

Who was the general who had his own camera crew filming him getting his trousers ("pants") wet (only below the knees) supposedly paddling ashore in the Pacific Ocean from a landing craft? Is it true he had four takes made before he was satisfied; and that he changed into some old pants ("trousers") before he was lowered into the drink? Where was that and when?

To be fair, the murder of the '50' was shown in the Great Escape (although not accurately, they were executed individually), and the film was dedicated to their memory. My point is that as a result of the film at least the story is known.

Wet pants General? I can only think of Douglas Macarther (wrong spelling I think).

The killing of Lance Corporal Matty Hull in an American air strike in Iraq was a "criminal, unlawful act" by pilots who opened fire "with disregard for the rules of engagement", a coroner ruled yesterday.

Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner Andrew Walker also scathingly criticised the US authorities for their lack of co-operation which had caused so much "pain and suffering" to L/Cpl Hull's family. The failure to hand over important documents has meant that "the full facts have not yet come to light".

L/Cpl Hull, 25, died when his convoy came under attack from two A-10 "Tankbuster" warplanes despite the British vehicles showing orange markings to signify allied forces.

The coroner said "the attack on the convoy amounted to an assault. It was unlawful because there was no lawful reason for it and in that respect it was criminal. The pilot who opened fire did so with disregard to the rules of engagement and acting outside the protection of the law of armed conflict."

Mr Walker said the actions of American officials towards L/Cpl Hull's family had been inexcusable. "They, despite request after request have been, as this court has been, denied access to evidence that would provide the fullest explanation of the sequence of events that caused the tragic loss of L/Cpl Hull's life.

"I hope that in future, this does not remain their position and it is recognised that these decisions cause great harm to those who make them and and are a profound disservice to those who lost their lives in the service of their country and to the families left behind who simply want to know the truth."

On the penultimate day of the inquest at Oxford Old Assizes L/Cpl Hull's widow, Susan, had made a personal appeal to President George Bush for release of material from the Pentagon.

Yesterday she said the lack of American co-operation was "very disappointing". She added: "Of course I am fearful it could happen again but that's outside my hands. I think there have to be lessons learned from this. It's very clear that after such a death, evidence is required - full evidence right from the beginning, co-operation with boards of inquiry and investigations right from the beginning. If that doesn't happen in other circumstances such as this, this will all have been in vain."

Asked about the US and Britain supposedly standing "shoulder to shoulder" in Iraq, Mrs Hull continued: "They were all together serving the same purpose. But when it comes to following on from that and supporting each other in situations after that I think they [British soldiers] have been badly let down."

Mrs Hull added: "I hold Popov-36 [the codename for the US pilot] responsible for my husband's death because he fired. I hope that the pilots are at peace with themselves and that they can move on with their lives. I am sure they feel remorse for what they did."

She said: "Matt ... was probably one of the most professional soldiers you could meet, which is something we find quite difficult because he was taken from us in a manner that was far from professional."

Following the verdict the US Department of Defence issued a statement denying there was a cover-up and said that L/Cpl Hull's death was a "tragic accident".

A spokesman said: "The [US] investigation determined that the incident took place in a complex combat environment, the pilots followed applicable procedures and processes for engaging targets, believing they were engaging enemy targets, and that this was a tragic accident."

The coroner's statement

"The pilot chose not to take steps to confirm the identity of the vehicles in the convoy - that he could easily have taken. The pilot who opened fire did so with disregard for the rules of engagement and acting outside the protection of the law of armed conflict.

"I'm satisfied, having given careful consideration to all the evidence that I have heard in this inquest, that this is a case where I can properly consider whether an unlawful action and manslaughter applies here. I find there was no lawful authority to fire on the convoy. The attack on the convoy amounted to an assault. It was unlawful because there was no lawful reason for it and in that respect it was criminal. The pilot who opened fire did so with disregard to the rules of engagement and acting outside the protection of the law of armed conflict.

"I don't think this was a case of a honest mistake. The pilot chose to interpret the orange panels (placed on coalition vehicles to identify them as friendly) as rockets without taking steps to identify the vehicles as friendly.

"The courage and bravery of L/Cpl Hull and of those in that convoy cannot be underestimated and follow the tradition within our armed forces that we are all justifiably proud of. The determination and courage of the members of L/Cpl Hull's family cannot go without mention either.

"I would like to offer my deepest sympathies to members of the family. I have no doubt of how much pain and suffering they have been put through during this inquisition process and to my mind that is inexcusable. They, despite request after request have been, as this court has been, denied access to evidence that would provide the fullest explanation of the sequence of events that led to caused the tragic loss of L/Cpl Hull's life."
Published in the UK 'Independent' today.

I am not sure if any of this would be reported at all stateside which is why I post this.

We suggest that Phil H. should be thanked for his report of the coroner's court result in this matter.
Still more should we thank the newspaper for its open and fulsom coverage of the comments and correspondence.
The Idaho Statesman sets an example that every democratic press and government should follow.
Our fundamental freedoms depend on this.
Thank you.

Yes. Phil H., thank you for coming to New West and posting the report.

A correspondent has kindly mentioned to us something that may seem small, but, in view of Eldon Anderson's strange perception of Britain's part in WW2 being a matter of thumb-sucking, may help put a proper perspective on things: every Christmas since WW2 one of the principle landmarks of London (England), Trafalgar Square, has a massive Christmas Tree set up and decorated for the festival. THIS TREE IS A REGULAR ANNUAL PRESENT FROM THE PEOPLE OF NORWAY to the people of Britain, as a kindly Norwegian acknowledgement and memento of the British people's refusal to come to terms with Hitler and for standing fast and fighting the forces of Hitler and Mussolini after the conquest of France, Belgium, Holland and Scandinavia. The Norwegians do not think their friends sucked their thumbs. Where did Mr Eldon Anderson get his idea?

Greetings, Harrow English School. As far as I can tell, Mr. Anderson gets his ideas frm Mr. Anderson. In all societies there are people who don't use logic, reason, history and science to form ideas and make decisions, and I'll leave it up to you to decide who they are. But do let me say that of all the articles I've written, this one drew the most comments and private emails ever, and in overwhelming numbers Americans stood firmly with the British. It's unfortunate that insulting comments such as Mr. Anderson made get as much attention as they do, as he represents but a tiny fraction of American people. We felt it was important to write about it here so you can see he embarrassed us and that we apologize.

I have visited your country and found the collective sense of history shared by most of the population touching and impressive. Keep in mind that the U.S. is geographically vast, and that collectiveness is more difficult here because of it - diluted by regionalism on a huge scale, you might say. Having said that, I will say it is still very much a part of our culture to know and appreciate history. There will always be exceptions, unfortunately.

Please do let us hear from you again, anytime. And be assured that most of us know of, and appreciate the sacrifices made by Brits in the fights against fascism. Jill Kuraitis, Boise publisher, New West

Everything that Eldon said are all true.Its true that everytime theres war going on we have to save our so called "BRITISH BROTHERS" from the hands of tyranny.Maybe we made a big mistake in saving them when HItler was around.Im sorry to say but you guys in britain are in some kind of delusion if you think your our brothers.

Little Stephanie Bradwen (26 May 2007) should read some proper adult history books. She should also improve her English grammar!

If she can get a back copy of this "Statesman" with the long letter of 22 February 2007 from Harrow English School, she will also learn the historical truth, very compactly presented.

She should never forget that the USA did NOT even declare war in WW2.

Germany, Italy and Japan declared war on the USA (because they were sure the USA were cowardly).

The German U-boats had already sunk three US Navy warships without a squeak from FDR, long before Pearl Harbor.

Stephanie should do the following little exercise for homeworK: write down the name of every military conflict in which the USA has fought alone (apart from the enemy!) and reached a satisfactory conclusion.

Mary Lebone

I am disgusted by this continuing conversation that dishonors the war dead by all countries that fought together against tyrrany.

Ms. Lebone, perhaps you need a refresher in history. The United States did declare war. See: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/dec/dec05.htm

I am obliged to Dr Moore (26 May 2007) for his reference-link and I acknowledge the record therein; but is our formal post-factum declaration of war against against a state which has already formally declared war on us (after first sinking our warships) really a significant gesture?
As some of the previous correspondents in this matter have suggested, this seems more like another of those "heroic" straws grasped by Hollywood (or "Hollyork" as Fred Reed calls it!) for constructing its eternal fantasy-history of the USA.
As for this conversation dishonouring anyone, in my submission the greatest dishonour is done when self-congratulatory falsehood, half-truth and blatant fiction is preferred to effective fact; and when gratuitous insult is heaped, by the useless and ignorant, upon the genuinely worthy.
The whole of this conversation has been (thanks to the open generosity of these Idaho publishers - for which we should all be profoundly grateful) aimed at putting right a wrong irresponsibly committed and - astonishingly - still being sustained by a few mistaken or malevolent contributors.

M.L.

Ms. Lebone, the US had to options to declare war, surrender, or sue for peace. Yes, the Declaration of War by the United States was deeply significant. In not only carried important legal and military weight, but it united America to make common cause with our allies against the greatest threat at that time.

Any attempt to compare the magnitude of dishonor of separate acts I find repulsive. One bad act does not justify another. We should all remember the importance of Flanders Field and the reason we buy poppies this time of year. All of our fallen heroes deserve nothing less.

While I recognise the need for the legalities and due process involved in the nationaI response to having someone declare war on the USA when the USA were crouching below the parapet trying not to be noticed, I still cannot shake off the feeling that this somehow lacks the strutting and flourishing with which the USA representatives usually address the world at large. Where was the shock and awe then? The Germans declared war on the USA and the USA said, formally, "the same to you!". As for
Dr Moore's other pronouncement (that he "finds any attempt to compare the magnitude of dishonor of separate acts repulsive") well, good for him, but what has this to do with anything relevant to the comments on the behaviour of Eldon Anderson, and its justification or otherwise? Which, after all, is the sole topic of this correspondence?

First let me just say that before bitching on somebody make sure your addressing him right.Are you even educated properly because i dont see any common sense in you?You do not deserve a single minute of my time little Mary Lebone if your not American but i'll let you off. Bottom line little mary is that if we Americans didn't declare war in WW2 all of Europeans like you i presume, would be speaking German and licking Hitlers boot.

Let me also enlighten that little brain of yours that the reason why America didn't declare war is because the war had nothing to do with us in the first place.We provided weaponry to britain and Russia under Lend Lease policy that creates jobs here.So why ruin that? Also a poll was taken of the U.S. citizen's opinion about Roosevelt taking us into the war and ninety-four percent were against the United States getting involved.You see were a very powerful nation but we are not war freaks who jumps in every opportunity.

Maybe mary should just accept the fact that your kind of people need us americans and that we live in the same littlle planet called earth and its very unfortunate that your nation belongs in it. And also kindly send me the cheque if your planning to enroll in a decent school where they actually teach proper English and common sense.Thank you and good day

Stephen Bradwen

Following the very kind remarks of Ms Jill Kuraitis of this newspaper on 31 March 2007 we would like to draw her (and others) attention to the following news of a new British archive or tool of history.
TIME CAPSULE
A "21st century Domesday Book" - a snapshot of the United Kingdom seen through e-mails - is being compiled by the British Library, with help from Microsoft.
The library is asking everyone in the UK to compose a message for posterity, or to forward an interesting e-mail from their inbox or sent mail box.
Originally scheduled to run for one month, until May 31st, the open invitation is likely to be extended if the target of a million-plus messages is not reached by the planned closing date.
John Tuck, British collections head at the library, said: "E-mail Britain will allow us to archive a vast snapshot of our present-day e-mail communications and will be of great value for future researchers.
Digital archiving of e-mail has never been attempted before on this scale and we're very excited to be capturing such a rich slice of contemporary life".
The e-mail address for those who wish to take part is .

http://www.newhotmail.co.uk/emailbritain/

The letters of Stephen Bradwen are such exquisite literature they make my skin crawl (with their polished English and perceptive observations and all).
I have had it pointed out to me that Pearl Harbor was intended as the opening foray on behalf of the combined Axis powers (Germany, Italy, the Soviet Union and Japan) in an invasion of the USA mainland.
Many South American states were thinking of joining in.
The only fly in their ointment was that Britain would not lie down, had shredded the Luftwaffe over Britain, and had wiped the Italians and the German Afrika Corps off the face of Africa.
Britain was also undermining the German occupation of Norway.
As my informant wrote to me, the USA was wholly unprepared to be invaded, had not declared war on aybody and was genuinelu saved from this (and only just) by the sacrifices of the British and Commonwealth forces that rallied round.
If the British Commonwealth had not been there to save the USA from invasion after Pearl Horbor the Yanks would now all speak Jap/German/Italian/Russian.

Er - come to think of it..................................
M. L.

Well I just became aware of this incident and had to say something.

One, he's a loser. His type drags our military into the dirt because they think that war is cool, although they lose all the wars they are involved in (can't defeat people in pajamas apparently). The friendly fire incident typifies the incompetence of the officer corps through the US military (excepting the Marines). Check out "A Company of Soldiers" on the Frontline series site at pbs.org. You'll see officers who are confused and emotional, not the steely eyed warriors they pretend to be.

Two, like most of his type, he has no real knowledge of history. The US did not enter the war to save Britain - it entered the war in Europe because Germany (stupidly) declared war on it. The US would have been only too happy to fight a one-theater war against the Japanese and let things develop in Europe before getting involved.

Three, he's not a patriot, but a sham. He knows nothing about his country. There are tens of thousands of these people here - rich, stupid, and chickenshit. The embodiment of (false) patriotism as the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Four, he doesn't speak for the real military or for most Americans. Permit me to apologize in the name of our line troops and the vast majority of Americans who love the Islanders and respect their history. After all, for the most part, We are They, if somewhat removed in time.

-ross in stlouis

What a thoughtful and sensible letter from Ross in St.Louis. He is right about the USA having to respond to a prior declaration of war by the Axis of Germany Italy and Japan, but that is not the way it is told in school in the uSA. Mary Lebone's letter is correct, too. What is not made clear to all by the historians is that Hitler and Stalin had signed a treaty shortly before Pearl Harbor. Do you think that when Germany, Italy and Japan stormed into the USA mainland Stalin would not have insisted on joining the invasion? The only thing that stood in the way of a walk-over for the Axis totake the USA were the British Isles, the Royal Navy and the Commonwealth forces. Did you know that after the war the British and Australians fought another war in Malaya against the same enemy in the same jungle that the USA fought in VietNam? The Malayan War lasted twelve (12) years 1947-1959 and the British Commonwealth won it totally. Malaya is still free. That is another item that does not appear in the USA schoolbooks. Mr Ross in St. Louis has done us all a favor.