Really? I thought I was talking to a twelve year old. But congratulations on having grown up completely intolerant of your Muslim fellows.Quote:
i have grown up...
Printable View
Really? I thought I was talking to a twelve year old. But congratulations on having grown up completely intolerant of your Muslim fellows.Quote:
i have grown up...
seen more than you lady been in more nasty situations and i thought i was talking to the village idiot or someone that's very naive or just does not want to see.
Name calling and sheer petty insults are pointless and not worth engaging with.
But I will respond to OnMyKnees and his question regarding what my intent or point is here.
First I regret that I posted the TWO images together that started this thread. One was a joke - the Walmart image. The other was not. I have removed the Walmart image.
What I am talking about is the widening gulf between the face we present to the world - the argument that we are civilised in the West, that our values are somehow more noble, that our enemies are savage" or worse and that we are defending western values and the looming reality - be it the holding of people for 10 years now without trial, without recourse to lawyers, without justification because we suspect they might be enemy combatants, I am talking about disresepcting our enemy as illustrated by this picture, but also in plaves like Bagrham and worse, I am talking about bad behaviour in the field of combat. I am talking about the gleeful attitudes of those sitting in the comfort of bukners as they play kill farmers and others in Afghanistan because, sometimes, the enemy mingle with them. Yes we have to kill people. Yes war is fucking horrible (and as i said in response to Arnie i do not talk here from a position of ignorance about what happens in the theatre of war. I have been with US and Afghan special forces in Helmand. I have seen the bravery of most - and the reality of living with terror and imminent death) There are atrocities on both sides. The army grooms men to kill and war makes monsters of them - or brings out what is already there, But we present ourselves as the side with right. And we constantly undermine that.
As for the ignorant hatred of some people posting here. It is beneath contempt.
Dino I totally and utterly condemn Assad's behaviour in Syria. He like his father before him are monsters But we need to have high standards when we call out others for their crimes.
Oh I don't care about Muslims any more than I care about inbred upside-downers. Of course I'm not scared of them either, because I'm not a cowardly punk like you & most of the rest of the loudmouthed internet pseudo tough guys, who just wish they had the intellect, intestinal fortitude, & physical prowess of Barney Fife.Quote:
Originally Posted by russtafa
Who is Barney Fife?
He was a character on the Andy Griffith show (1960 - 1968, played by Don Knotts. Sorry. Sometimes I forget that so much of the rest of the world is culturally deprived by a lack of Americana.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=...ture=endscreen
Oh & BTW: The kid, Opie, is played by now movie mogul & former star of Happy Days, Ron Howard.
I have no idea why the clip won't embed. Oh well.
is that right mr hippie i think i have been in situations that would have you running for your momma and i think a lot of the guys that say they have done things on this site are probably tough ,why lie?As for you blokes that expect young guys in their twenties to behave like perfect gentlemen in the worst conditions,you have got to be kidding.Hippies were the worst cowards out in the sixties running from the draft and then jeering at the returning troops,they were fucking shitQuote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
If you don't understand it is because you don't want to, I have tried to direct your attention to the core issue, but you ignore it because it focuses on the issue that hurts the most: the cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by onmyknees
I have no problem with the occasional heroism and bravery of armed service personnel in the field, its their job and sometimes they 'go the extra mile' for their comrades, but far from being eager to get stuck in like you, seasoned military professionals do not seek armed conflict- Colin Powell, who knows more about it than you do, once said it was his duty to prevent the USA from deploying troops in a theatre of war, precisely because of the things that can happen - and you should not send troops into a theatre of war without knowing how you are going to get them out. Surely even you can see what a mess the US military has been in since it was hi-jacked by the Republican Party?
But my key point is: WHY ARE THEY THERE? You never concern yourself with the core issue, because the truth is NATO need not be in Afghanistan at all, if anything NATO forces are an obstacle to the deal that will eventually be done with the Taliban, and which has to be done with the Taliiban if there is to be a workable peace, just as there has to be a resolution to the conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir because Afghanistan is caught between the ambitions of these two countries as well as having its own problem creating stability and peace, but you either don't know what these issues are, or you are so focused on the so-called theatre of war you can't see the writing on the wall.
Your wilful ignorance of the politics is what makes your posts resemble the soundtrack to Rambo -and it is all about Politics: just as Clausewitz said that war is the continuation of diplomacy by other means, it also means that wars happen when politics fails, and wars end when politics re-asserts itself. There are serious issues on the table, some of them historical, some of them socio-economic, all have political resonance -and a lot of it is boring, but patient diplomacy that yields results works -two Democrat Presidents, Carter and Clinton, presided over two peace treaties -not two wars, peace treaties- between Israel and the Palestinians; Bush I and Bush II produced nothing comparable, but Bush I trashed Iraq, looked the other way while an enraged Saddam Hussein -the USA's ally for so many years- drained the southern Marshes, slaughtered the Shi'a and attempted to obliterate Iraqi Kurdistan, and then Bush II moved in to turn Iraq into a slaughterhouse -make the comparison: diplomacy, endless rounds of talks and talks and papers: or war, and then ask: which one works? Which one produces a desired result?
If all you want to do is kill people, don't be surprised if their descendants come to kill you -or you could just wake up one day and say, as do most soldiers: Enough! Then its time to talk.
Peace is the only option, but often the hardest option, it is easier for you to go Poof! when a Taliban gets killed, than it is to shake his hand, invite him for a coffee, and ask him what it is that he really wants.
Consider Daw Aung san suu Kyi, an exemplary political leader who has the right to be embittered and seek the destruction of the military who have ruined Burma -but who, instead of opting for violence, works tirelessly for a peaceful solution to the problems Burma has. Nelson Mandela could have led an armed conflict in South Africa -he chose peace and reconciliation. Again and again, war is exposed as the problem not the solution; peace and peaceful co-existence the only way in which to live, but it takes courage, and that is what is lacking in too much of contemporary politics. For heaven's sake, you can't even talk to Cuba! Is it really so difficult?
we should never be in these shit holes and the occupants of these shit holes should NEVER be allowed to live with us but our politicians want these scumbags brought over to torment the decent hard working people .lets face it most of these politicians were a product of the sixties with very left wing tendencies and a deep hatred of police and the working people ,veterans of wars fought to protect its people
Peace is the only option, but often the hardest option, it is easier for you to go Poof! when a Taliban gets killed, than it is to shake his hand, invite him for a coffee, and ask him what it is that he really wants.
Let's take the above statement and replace the word Taliban with the word Nazi.
Peace is the only option, but often the hardest option, it is easier for you to go Poof! when a Nazi gets killed, than it is to shake his hand, invite him for a coffee, and ask him what it is that he really wants. Does that sound silly to you as it does to me?
But hey, I do agree with ya. I don't think war is ever the answer. If I lived during WWll I would have said that the US should never have gone to war in Europe, let them kill each other, I don't care. I agree, the Brits and French should never have sent planes to attck in Lybia, they should have just talked instead. I agree, the Brits were 100% wrong in sending troops to that piece of rock in the south Atlantic, the Brits should have talked instead of fighting. And according to the Monroe doctrine, the US should have backed Argentina in that dispute.
I agree, Spain should not fight with the basque separatists, they should only talk with them instead. I agree, we should never have sent troops to Bosnia/Serbia/Kosovo, talking should be the way to go. I agree, France and Britain should stop sending troops to Africa every time there is trouble there, why don't we just talk to the people there?
I agree, neo nazis in germany should have the right to be a political force without being arrested for their ideas. Why don't Europeans just talk to the neo nazis and see what it is they really want?
But I do really agree with this. I agree that NATO should be disbanded. I believe the US should get out of NATO and return all troops, planes and missiles from Europe, I totally agree with that, the sooner the better. Maybe then when Europe throws another sissy fit and fights each other, when one man is the victor, say a Hitler type, then we can talk to him alone and see what he wants.
Funny thing,, you people say we should talk with people like Cuba and the Taliban yet most of you lot won't even recognize to talk with the tea party people cause you think they are so evil. I mean, you guys in Europe put sanctions on Austria cause the people of Austria had the nerve to elect a right wing person as their leader. This thread is filled with such left wing European garbage. For you Europeans, clean your own yard before you comment on what is wrong in the US, don't forget., it was you guys that gave us the two most destructive wars in history, it was you guys that were the main pillagers of Africa and other colonies. You have to wait a few hundred years before you are allowed to take the moral high ground in any debates about the US.
PS, And anyway, the Brits have been by our side in almost every venture in the world. If you want to stop wars, then tell your own govt's to stop sending your troops around the world, maybe then you can tell us. Otherwise keep eating your cheese and crumpets and stay out of US policy.
Here's another embarrassing picture, and to think, you Brits bow down your heads to these guys. You Brits are fools.
Hey, let's also not forget who these guys were that got peed on. These are the guys that bomb and burn schools that want to educate little girls. These are the same guys that would be head everyone on this forum for living as life they don't approve of. I mean, you lot talk about the religious right in the US as evil yet these guys are evil ten fold in comparison and yet, you ask that we should talk to them. and see what it is they want. Are you guys completely insane? Do you guys when walking down the street and are confronted by let's say a group of nazi skinheads, as they beat you up for being a tgirl or being with a tgirl, do you try and talk to them or do you try and defend yourself? I gotta admit, I truly believe that some of you live deep in a closet with very little contact with the real world. Sometimes violence is the answer, it is if you want to live and see another day. Talking ain't gonna do shit.
http://fringe.devhub.com/img/upload/...harry_nazi.jpg
I didn't see anyone here defending the dead Taliban who were picked off by the American snipers. I do think that pissing on them after they were already killed and then uploading to the internet isn't in our own best interests; i.e. pissing on dead Taliban in front of the whole world is counter to our mission of stabilizing a faltering government so we can get the fuck out. Anyone who gets in the way of that mission is endangering more NATO soldiers and should be dealt with appropriately.
:claps:claps:clapsQuote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
FUCKING BEAUTIFUL :Bowdown:I love it.well hippie and co put that in your peace pipe and smoke it yah catsQuote:
Originally Posted by Yvonne183
:iagree::iagree::iagree:Quote:
Originally Posted by Yvonne183
You have mixed together a lot of conflicting issues, and I understand your frustration, and I can only represent myself, not this country, whose foreign policy for the last 30 odd years has been shameful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yvonne183
But
a) Afghanistan is a NATO operation not just a US one, British forces are also there, so my policy complaint is levelled at NATO rather than solely at the USA; there is no moral high ground here, and anyway I have protested against my government's involvement in this war and all the others -including the Falklands- since the 1960s.
b) the replacement of Taliban with Nazi doesn't work: in the first place, the Taliban are fighting for their country against what they see as an invading force, they are a small group with some support in the country and they will inevitably have to be part of a peaceful solution in Afghanistan. The situation in Germany was quite different -the radical insistence of the French at Versailles to punish Germany financially, geographically and militarily stored up issues that were always going to be difficult to resolve once Germany was restored to peace; that the Germans themselves failed to deal with the growth of National Socialism does not mean that by 1939 'the Germans' were Nazi's; yes many were, but it isn't that simple, and I think you know that. Most of the German High Command were Nationalists but not Nazi's, General Halder in particular was passing vital information on to the British, completely different from Afghanistan, and as I am sure you know, after the war many ex-Nazi's were recruited by the Allies in the new Germany, many were recruited as 'stay-behinds' in East Germany to act as spies against the USSR -so, in effect, we didn't just offer them coffee, we employed them. I don't know precisely how many Germans or Austrians worked on the Bomb in the USA, I don't think the Taliban are going to be giving the US lessons on how to construct an IED in the near future.
Menachem Begin shook hands with Anwar Sadat, Yitzak Rabin with Arafat, two sets of implacable foes -it can be done, Yvonne, even if invisibly one or two or all four of them were pinching their noses -and their buttocks.
As for Prince Harry, please don't assume that because I am a citizen of this country or, as some prefer, a subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, that I bow my head to that particular lout, or indeed, to any of them. I respect Brenda as head of state, but that's as far as it goes. I would rather live in a republic.
In these times, we have options, I am confident that as far as South Asia goes, peace is the one option that has not been tried, that has not been pressed with enough vigour. Its not just about the shocking waste of money, it is about living people, whoever they are, and how to preserve them. I don't agree with the Taliban's anti-social social policy any more than you do -but then neither do most Afghans, and surely you would agree that once a person is dead, they should be buried with respect, whoever they are, and however modestly and quietly it is done.
Oh, okay. So you still haven't learned to read (or maybe it's just a comprehension problem) & you still don't know anything. You certainly don't know anything about me, & seem to be having all kinds of problems fitting me into your lame know-nothing stereotypes. Of course a rational person would probably take that as at least a minor clue that stereotypes are bogus, but I won't hold my breath waiting for you to become rational, or even an adult. Guaging by thye putrid chunks you constantly spew across the pages here, you don't seem to have a clue what's going on now. & by the above quote, you don't know what went on before either. Oh well. I guess that's what happens when somebody's too scared of the world & its inhabitants to go outside & check it out, or to try & talk to & get to know different people. That won't change as long as you stay locked in your room at mommy's, with the sole source of information coming from the blogisphere. You still haven't shown me anything that says you're not a punk. Why lie? Because it's the anonymous internet where non-descript weenies can put on their comic book alter-egos. It works with other punks & the terminally naive. Doesn't work with me though. I don't have those kind of personal problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by russtafa
pot calling the kettle black,:dead:yah dumb hippie lolQuote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
I'd be curious to know how many Brits support the Royal family.... I mean, we get our Head of State through voter lines. Whereas the Brits get their Head of State through bloodlines.... The whole thing is disgusting. I mean, the whole British class system is equally disgusting. (And, of course, it is bread and circuses. An old Roman concept of: give the people enough food and plenty of entertainment and they won't give a damn about politics. So true.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Yvonne183
Why Do 80% of Brits not care about the royal wedding? BECAUSE THEY ARE GERMAN EUGENICIST PARASITES - YouTube
Paxman: The royal wedding has virtually no significance except... - YouTube
No lover of the royal family of jerks. And long ago we tamed these people. They are titular heads - not much more. And yes - that is an embarassing picture. Not quite in the league of soldiers urinating on the dead though.
i do like the old tradition of the king fighting in the front of his troops
if you don't like the troops urinating on the rag heads take their place and show them how it's done?Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
You've been watching too many movies Russtafa, Kings with half a brain are usually on a horse on a hilltop far away watching the 'little platoons' getting speared, hammered and toasted, or maybe even winning. How long would any of them lasted if they were at the front? For the record, George II is said to have 'led' his troops- the battle of Dettingen in the War of the Austrian Succession,1743, but as far as I know having ridden the horse at the head of 'his men', he then quickly scarpered to safety to let the 'lads' do their work. The last king to die in battle was Richard III in 1485, and he was killed by other 'Englishmen' at the Battle of Bosworth Field during the Wars of the Roses, and let's just say that apart from all the myths, Richard III isn't considered the most shining example of monarchs in this country's glorious history.Quote:
Originally Posted by russtafa
In general the monarchy is popular, not sure how it breaks down for individual royals as they have had different 'careers' with matching press coverage good and bad. If its bad, the 'advisers' usually take control to clean up the image, give the offending royal a suitable charity to get involved in as penance, and hope the public 'warm' to them. As for the class system, if you detest it so much, then stop watching Downton Abbey!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/me...e-6291113.html
Ben.... a lot of people in the UK would be happy to see the monarchy disappear. But one argument for their retention is the tourist dollar all that pomp and circumstance brings in. Another is that without them we'd have all the potential corruption and political shennanigans around electing a president.
The Queen is generally rather popular I guess. And this year celebrates her diamond jubilee.
Prince Charles, heir to the throne is less popular and certainly his ratings plummetted after he and Princess Diana split up.
His sister, Anne is thought to be sensible and is respected as a hard worker but not particularly likeable. Andrew and edward are thought to be buffoons.
Jump a generation and it seems the public have now fallen in love with Prince William and his new wife Catherine. His brother on the other hand - in the icture posted by Yvonne - is thought to be a fool.
It's all fantasy stuff really. A distraction from all the bad news around.
This week the Tory Party has proposed the british taxpayer pay for the Queen to have a new yacht for her diamond jubilee. The idea has got a very mixed reception.
i think it must be part of the requirements for being King or Prime minister or President that if war is declared they go first :dancing:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros