[de_monies]

(Original post by idontthinkso)
Ahahaha, Hitler attacked other countries because he wanted to build an empire.
The US attacked Afghanistan to show its power and gain some revenge over Al Qaeda after the 9/11.
To this day I don't know why the US went to Iraq (bad intel, or maybe just pure stupidity). Still, in the process they freed a country from a dictator. Granted, that it was only to later find that those people cannot live without one, but still.

George Bush claimed that "God told him to do so"

[de_monies]

(Original post by Snagprophet)
How is that racist?

Well, the last time you said that, it got deleted and you accrued some warning points...

[Snagprophet]

(Original post by de_monies)
Well, the last time you said that, it got deleted and you accrued some warning points...

Well their races bare no relevance to my opinion.

[jtnf]

Some of these posts make me so angry!

Even if you don't agree with the country they operate in, the politicians who sent them there or the job they are doing in that country you should always support the troops. They don't ask to go to war, live in a desert away from their families and see their friends killed and injured around them. For those who say "Well they signed up for it, they knew what they were doing"...yes, they did. But if they didn't sign up for it then what would happen? Conscription. Which means all those who have condemned the troops would be out there doing their job instead. Sometimes people need to learn to keep their thoughts to themselves when they have nothing nice to say.

Don't you realise that without the men and women who have given their lives and limbs for this country over many years, you wouldn't be entitled to air your personal opinions?

[de_monies]

(Original post by Snagprophet)
Well their races bare no relevance to my opinion.

Still makes you xenophobic, if not racist. Also, Afghans are hardly likely to be say Filipino now, are they?

[de_monies]

(Original post by jtnf)
Some of these posts make me so angry!

Even if you don't agree with the country they operate in, the politicians who sent them there or the job they are doing in that country you should always support the troops. They don't ask to go to war, live in a desert away from their families and see their friends killed and injured around them. For those who say "Well they signed up for it, they knew what they were doing"...yes, they did. But if they didn't sign up for it then what would happen? Conscription.

This is not WW3. People sign up for war if they want to be a part of war. Whilst I realise that these men had families etc..you never hear the same people who say RIP to these soldiers, say RIP to Afghan soldiers or even Afghan civilians who have lost so much more as a result of this war

3 soldiers doesn't compare to thousands of Afghan civilian deaths, as a result of duplicitous action over the last 2/3 decades

(Original post by jtnf)
Which means all those who have condemned the troops would be out there doing their job instead.

I criticise the army, but more so the politicians. I realise that sometimes soldiers literally have no choice, but criticism does not mean that I wish to do their job. I don't wish to be paid to kill someone, regardless of how dangerous they may be. No thank you. I've criticised many governments. Does it mean that I should be a politician?

I've criticised how some companies do business. Does it mean that I should run for CEO of those respective companies?

(Original post by jtnf)
Don't you realise that without the men and women who have given their lives and limbs for this country over many years, you wouldn't be entitled to air your personal opinions?

This argument annoys me, simply because it's not true. We're allowed to air our personal opinions because of democracy and because of the renaissance period. I can't picture how fighting a war in a foreign country, gives us freedom to air our personal opinions?

The only groups that I can think of who may have or did have members lose their limbs and/or lives, as a result for wanting freedom were the suffragette movement, and the movement for equal rights in the United States ie: equal rights for people regardless of colour

When people have lost their limbs or lives, for people to air their personal opinions, it has never been done by sending a soldier to a foreign country, who is there as a pawn on a chess board.

Notice how terrorism increased after Afghanistan and Iraq were attacked

[ESPORTIVA]

Feel sorry for their families loss. But why the hell are we still there? Is this a joke?, a war that has lasted over decade against a bunch of cave warriors, seriously? Is no one else seeing how crazy this is? World war 2 lasted only 6 years....we are not even fighting an army, this has to be a joke.....

[ThickJuicyCock]

(Original post by LegitMan)
Who cares? A lot more civilians die due to these troops' presence

It's no biggie that 3 British soldiers died.

[ANIGAV]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
Wow, posting a highly unscholarly anti-Semitic conspiracy video that portrays the evil Jewish Rothschilds as manipulative, tentacled octupuses in order to back up your point? Good move. As it is with all conspiracy theories those who don't share your belief in the evil bankers controlling the world from behind the scenes are obviously on a lower intellectual plane than you and aren't 'enlightened' or 'open' enough.

I don't see a conspiracy theory, who prints money? Federal Reserve. Who collects the money for them? IRS.

It's an accurate representation on how money was created, those who control the money also control its people, it's common sense really.

Drop your ad homs, and try to refute the video in a structural manner, if you have nothing else to say than insulting then please don't waste my valuable time.

I find it hysterical how you have managed to add "jewish" into all this. Shows your intellect.

[Bill_Gates]

oil and heroin come at a cost you know.

[JessaminePoppy]

ಠ_ಠ Dude. They were soldiers. At least they died for a reason, even if it is one fabricated by politicians. Actually no, self contradiction coming up, that makes it pointless doesn't it?

Any loss of life is sad. Great. Now I'm sad. Hopefully, their associates/ families will work through their loss okay. Not that they'll see these posts.

[blueray]

(Original post by doggyfizzel)
I've done a lot of reading of books about Afgan and seen a lot of documentaries. From what I can see is one of the biggest problems is Afgan society (if you can call it that) doesn't work like ours. Loyalties lie in different places, local allegiances, tribal allegiances and trade (drug or otherwise) are far greater than the loyalty to Afghanistan as a geographical location. Hamid Karzai is often referred to as the mayor of Kabul, simply because that is pretty much as far as his influence spreads. Its very hard to quell an insurgency with just Afghan's from all over the place, you need local Afghan's who actually have power in the local areas. Until recently a huge amount of recruitment for the problems in the South came from the North. The problem with using people with influence in the South is most of these, as necessity dictates, have some kind of relationship with the Taliban or have vulnerable family connection in their area of operation.

I don't think the Afghan security forces can be trusted for the most part, by us or the people to be honest and just. For the most part I don't think they are committed enough, nor do they receive enough direction from a strong enough leadership, enough to withstand any real uprising once we leave. One fierce assault and they will scatter region after region. I just don't think Afghanistan is culturally ready for the kind of society we are trying to bring. They are still stuck in a short term tribal mentality, trying to unite them under 1 single Afghan banner just won't work. That united front will be needed if they are to aid in the goal of stopping there being a launch pad for terrorism is to work. The Taliban and their allies all unite under one banner, as hypocritical as that is.

Either way I have zero faith that the Gov and Forces when we leave will make it to 2020. Its a cold and harsh reality, but the drone have been amazingly effective in our number 1 goal which was stopping terrorist cells. We have tried twice now to install regime change and bring about a competent Government, and pretty much failed twice. As we have seen in Pakistan, the use of intelligence cells, combined with Special Forces operations and drone strikes are far more effective and far cheaper than regime change and long term occupation. Its also far less devastating on the civilian population than using air power in built up areas as was used in Iraq and Afghan when supporting ground ops.

My view of the problems in the Middle East is we need to do what has to be done to ensure the safety of our nations. We can work with governments, but ultimately its their job to get their house in order, and in no way should their failure to do so affect us in protecting ourselves. We should protect ourselves first and collaborate second. As such I have no qualms with drone strikes as currently they are doing that in areas Pakistan seems to have no control. I question the effectiveness having troops on the ground in whatever numbers relative to the drones in terms of results or cost, both human and financial. Our goal of winning hearts and minds and installing security for the people isn't looking good even 10 years on.

Only if drone strikes actually worked in the majority of cases



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...pakistan-tokyo

Edit nice to see Aj12 and Rhadamanthus ignoring open facts. Want more links? Just google drone attacks.

[Charzhino]

They are wasting their time and money being in Afghanistan, the rebels will just re-grasp the country once they leave anyway there is no way that country will become stable.

[doggyfizzel]

(Original post by blueray)
Only if drone strikes actually worked in the majority of cases

Effective in taking out terrorist leadership yes. al-Qaida's leadership has been decimated by the drone strikes, the civilian casualties are around 3000, far less than you are looking for either Iraq or Afghanistan.

[blueray]

(Original post by doggyfizzel)
Effective in taking out terrorist leadership yes. al-Qaida's leadership has been decimated by the drone strikes, the civilian casualties are around 3000, far less than you are looking for either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Leadership is destroyed, but so are loads of innocents, loads in turn take up arms when they see their mothers and brothers and family die, not a good strategy.

[cl_steele]

(Original post by Charzhino)
They are wasting their time and money being in Afghanistan, the rebels will just re-grasp the country once they leave anyway there is no way that country will become stable.

and we're now giving them, i cant quite remember the figure, but it was on the news last week but tens of billions of pounds and access to modern western arms ... last time they did that it blew up in their face and ill bet my bottom dollar itll happen again ... Afghanistan has been one giant cluster **** since time immemorial im not sure where the west is getting the idea that they can just solve the underlying issues with a damn cheque book :L

[doggyfizzel]

(Original post by blueray)
Leadership is destroyed, but so are loads of innocents, loads in turn take up arms when they see their mothers and brothers and family die, not a good strategy.

Far less innocents than with other solutions. There is always going to be collateral damage in lives or people property and such. That is the problem with people who operate within communities.

There have been a number of survey's about the feeling of the people of Waziristan and almost all of them have showed they dislike the terrorist groups operating in their area and positive about the drone strikes compared to other action.

[Florrick]

(Original post by blueray)
Leadership is destroyed, but so are loads of innocents, loads in turn take up arms when they see their mothers and brothers and family die, not a good strategy.

Face the facts friend. Imagine if it was Pakistanis that are doing this to America...the first world can only ever hold the third world to account.



It only took one or two Israeli soldiers to be kidnapped in Lebanon, for it to be decimated. (not that I agree with it anyway).

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by blueray)
Only if drone strikes actually worked in the majority of cases



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...pakistan-tokyo

Edit nice to see Aj12 ignoring open facts.

They do work in the majority of cases. Your example is just one example (from the anti-Semitic Iranian state television company, no less).

Looking at the independent figures for the civilians killed in Pakistan, the number is remarkably low (bearing in mind the high population density in Pakistan). At the low end, the Long War Journal has 138 civilians being killed from 2006-2012. According to Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann who use 'reliable press accounts', 80% of those killed have been militants and 2010 that figure rose to 95%.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by ANIGAV)
I don't see a conspiracy theory, who prints money? Federal Reserve. Who collects the money for them? IRS.

It's an accurate representation on how money was created, those who control the money also control its people, it's common sense really.

Drop your ad homs, and try to refute the video in a structural manner, if you have nothing else to say than insulting then please don't waste my valuable time.

I find it hysterical how you have managed to add "jewish" into all this. Shows your intellect.

Yes, it does show my intellect actually, because I am somewhat more educated than you obviously are on the way that classical anti-Semitic motifs present themselves in the modern media. The representation of the Rothschilds here is steeped in it, and it's worth bearing in mind that this family was prominent long before the Federal Reserve was created by an act of the US Government in the 1910s. I am against the Federal Reserve, but I gather that most people who are educated on the issue wouldn't use this video as an argument against it considering how pathetically weak it is.