Greadius
:yeah:
NOOO!!! Keep them as far away as possible
I hear the UN is contagious 
The war on "Terror"
- Thread starter Cardinal Ape
- Start date
I hear the UN is contagious 
G-Man
A One Man's War
Originally posted by IceBlaZe
I second G-Mans sayings
[off topic]
BTW, happy b-day G-Man
Just looked at your portfolio 2 days ago...
How old?
[/off topic]
Too old...
joespaniel
Unescorted Settler
"The British are coming!"
1700 British troops en route to Afghanistan to help with mop-up duties and reconstruction.
The largest troop deployment since 1991.
In other news, the general who won the vietnam war was quoted as saying the Americans pulled off an unparalelled victory in Afghanistan. He thought it should have taken much longer, years and years, and initialy doubted they would even win at all.
Many European military experts voiced similar astonishment.
However, many of America's allies continue to be stunned with the brainless statements coming from the Bush Administration.
Chief among them, the nuclear "contingency" plans.
Everyone knows that every country has them. You just dont talk about it. Duh.
1700 British troops en route to Afghanistan to help with mop-up duties and reconstruction.
The largest troop deployment since 1991.
In other news, the general who won the vietnam war was quoted as saying the Americans pulled off an unparalelled victory in Afghanistan. He thought it should have taken much longer, years and years, and initialy doubted they would even win at all.
Many European military experts voiced similar astonishment.
However, many of America's allies continue to be stunned with the brainless statements coming from the Bush Administration.
Chief among them, the nuclear "contingency" plans.
Everyone knows that every country has them. You just dont talk about it. Duh.
Greadius
:yeah:
Mop-up? Are British troops now glorified janitors?
Someone actually won the Vietnam War? Now that is news... I've always seen that war as a perfect parrallel to the Black Knight scene in "Monty Python's Holy Grail."
Anyway, I was admittedly surprised at the quick victory. About two years ago I wrote a foreign policy paper dealing with the U.S.'s moral obligation to support the Northern Alliance because of the Taliban's autrocities, but advocated very that the same tactic used in Kosovo should be applied: no ground troops.
I was so pleased when the Defense Department took my recomendation
I remember days before the Taliban basically collapsed the news started to circulate ideas that the U.S. wasn't really winning the war, and it wasn't really working. I hate Bush and his Administration, but I knew the strategy was sound and would work out right. Hopefully, after the overwhelming success in Kosovo and Afghanistan at topling regimes and achieving diplomatic objectives we've learned our lesson for future conflicts: large ground forces are essentially obsolete.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
Its our new tactic, wait till the Americans win the war, then send in the Paras. It has two advanatges, firstly it significantly reduces the chances of a British soilder being killed. Secondly, it gives the Paras something to do. However that being said, what a surprise that it is the British sending in troops and not any of our European friends. I don't think the American could have a better ally.
Panda
Metal head
That statement is false. Just because the British shout out louder than anyone other European nation that you have troops in Afganistan doesn't mean there aren't other nation's troops. At least Germany and Turkey have sent troops that participated in the assault on the cave complex. Denmark has provided troops for peace keeping and policing missions.
Can't name other nations for sure from the top of my head, but anyone interested can easily find out this is not a strict US/UK mission.
You meant boot licker, right? Tony 'The ****' Blair desperately trying to play global super power leader by sucking up first Clinton and now Bush, and in the process hoping to get a few votes in the next elections from people who still dream of 'The Empire'.
You sure must be proud.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
Our motto is "Don't ask questions and always follow orders". It is all part of our grand plan to become America's 51st state while being members of the EU. Therefore being the bridge between the two superpowers. Or it could just be that we boot lickers.
We are not shouting loudest, it is the rest who are not shouting loud enough. Anyway, do you know how many troops these other countries have deployed in Afganistan? Because the British have deployed 1,700 troops our largest deployment abroad since the Gulf War.
Greadius
:yeah:
I agree
Our Canadian neighbors actually sent troops as well, I think there are about a dozen countries participating in various parts of the operation.
joespaniel
Unescorted Settler
Yeah. North Vietnam.
I may butcher the name, but I believe it was General Gyap they interviewed.
I may also be mistaken, but I think that he was Westmorelands counterpart in the NVA.
As for the coalition, I am proud of all the soldiers, from all countries, who are doing what they can.
For the benefit of the posters who have not served in the military, I cannot begin to tell you the importance of logistical support. If not for the Canadians, to pick one country of many, we would not be where we are today.
It takes a TREMENDOUS effort to keep an army in the field, especially a high-tech one with air support. When I was an infantryman, they said it took 4 guys in the rear for each 1 of us in combat. And we were just grunts!
Canada and many others have been providing that service to our forces, and that makes them the un-sung heroes in my book.
Germany, the UK, Australia, Turkey and others have gone above and beyond IMHO, by sending combat troops to fight. Kudos!
Dont cofuse "Pentagon Speak" for mopping-up as anything safe. Theres still battles to be fought, and more of our young men will have to pay a price to win them.
To anyone who has friends or relatives from any country serving overseas, for what its worth, you have my thanks and well-wishes for a speedy return.
knowltok2
Deity
I'll give a big Amen to all of the preceding. My thanks as well.
Greadius
:yeah:
And Hamas has the audacity to blame the attack on Israeli terrorism.Originally posted by IceBlaZe
Passover Massacre
Just like the other day when a member of Palestinian security opened fire withe a automatic rifle on unarmed observers and fled the scene when he thought he had killed them... the Palestinian Authority blamed Isreali.
Israel have done nothing but restrained itself on all actions taken by arafats movement, the islamic jihad or the hamas in the last week, moreover we retreated most of our troops and ceased from taking actions against terrorists inside palestinien territories.
If you think this is terror wait untill their 6 yearold generation grows up to be 16. You have no idea what impact the palestinien education is going to have on co-existence or any chance for peace.
If you think this is terror wait untill their 6 yearold generation grows up to be 16. You have no idea what impact the palestinien education is going to have on co-existence or any chance for peace.
Greadius
:yeah:
No doubt about that... it seems everytime the world media takes interest, which would be the times when Israel retaliates, the terrorist attacks stop. Everytime I hear of a pullback, you can literally count the hours until some Israeli civilians die.
The U.S. would never show that standard of restraint. Proportional to population, the attack yesterday would have killed some 1,000 Americans and wounded 4,000. It is such a double standard for the U.S. government to request restraint/partially blame Israeli while acting with resolute force against our terrorist problems.
And the irony is the terrorists STILL blame the U.S.
The U.S. would never show that standard of restraint. Proportional to population, the attack yesterday would have killed some 1,000 Americans and wounded 4,000. It is such a double standard for the U.S. government to request restraint/partially blame Israeli while acting with resolute force against our terrorist problems.
And the irony is the terrorists STILL blame the U.S.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
This question may have already been asked but I'll ask it anyway. What does IceBlaZe and any other Israeli (is that correct?) think of the Saudi peace plan? If you don't know what it is then it basically means that the Arabs will recognise Israel in exchange for a separate Palestine state on 1968 borders, with the capital being East Jersulam and the return of Palestine refugees.
I find it interesting that the has been little or no (at least here in Britain) praise in the media for the restraint showed by Israel in the week leading up to the Arab summit in Beruit. There was terrorist attacks every day and little response. That must have taken a lot not to response, especially for Mr Sharon.
I find it interesting that the has been little or no (at least here in Britain) praise in the media for the restraint showed by Israel in the week leading up to the Arab summit in Beruit. There was terrorist attacks every day and little response. That must have taken a lot not to response, especially for Mr Sharon.
I reject the saudi peace offer in it's latest form. I don't accept that 3 million palestiniens will return to Israel.
It will be a demographical disaster and will mean the end of existence to Israel as a jewish democratic country.
As racist as it is I don't want to live in a country sorrounded by 4 million arabs.
Its very unfortunate that they lost their homes in the war they started, but that's life. They can return to the dozens of muslim countries around Israel. It's not politically correct, but it's the only reasonable solution.
What do you think is the point of Israel when the jews are no longer a major? It will be even worse than living in europe. The whole point of Israel is to collect jews around the world to a safe home free from anti-semitism and anti-judaism. Whats the point that we collected all of the jews we could here, and now flood it with a muslim major? It would just mean the end of Israel.
But, if they talk about the right to return as mentioned in UN resolution 194, it has a lot of interpertations, which some of them mean a very partial symbolic return, say 10,000-20,000 of palestiniens, that I am willing to accept.
But it's pointless anyhow, only the palestiniens would not accept the saudi resolution. The hamas said the passover massacre was a message to the arab nations that 'The palestinien people would not compromise'.
What do you think that means? It means exactly what the Hamas has in its platform: The destruction of Israel and the creation of palestine in it's territories. That includes tel-aviv, haifa, jaffa, all of jerusalem, my city, G-Man's city.
Onto another point: The arab countries in the arab league refused to condemn the terror attack. interesting.
It will be a demographical disaster and will mean the end of existence to Israel as a jewish democratic country.
As racist as it is I don't want to live in a country sorrounded by 4 million arabs.
Its very unfortunate that they lost their homes in the war they started, but that's life. They can return to the dozens of muslim countries around Israel. It's not politically correct, but it's the only reasonable solution.
What do you think is the point of Israel when the jews are no longer a major? It will be even worse than living in europe. The whole point of Israel is to collect jews around the world to a safe home free from anti-semitism and anti-judaism. Whats the point that we collected all of the jews we could here, and now flood it with a muslim major? It would just mean the end of Israel.
But, if they talk about the right to return as mentioned in UN resolution 194, it has a lot of interpertations, which some of them mean a very partial symbolic return, say 10,000-20,000 of palestiniens, that I am willing to accept.
But it's pointless anyhow, only the palestiniens would not accept the saudi resolution. The hamas said the passover massacre was a message to the arab nations that 'The palestinien people would not compromise'.
What do you think that means? It means exactly what the Hamas has in its platform: The destruction of Israel and the creation of palestine in it's territories. That includes tel-aviv, haifa, jaffa, all of jerusalem, my city, G-Man's city.
Onto another point: The arab countries in the arab league refused to condemn the terror attack. interesting.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
They call it resistance not terrorism, so you can see why they wouldn't condemn it as a terror attack. However they should condemn it and urge both sides to return to the peace talks.
Greadius
:yeah:
Since when have freedom fighters targeted civilians over dinner? Stop the oppressive practices and anti-Palestinian planning and execution that occurs at pizza parlors?
If they targeted only military targets, they would have their state by now. If they would have learned from Ghandi and MLK, they would have had their state 20 years ago.
they could have had a state in 1948, but they wanted all of israel so they opened war along with the arab countries. now they lost what they had and they can only have a smaller state.
But the rate that they are multiplying gazaa and the westbank wont be enough for them and sooner or later, with the existence of a palestinien country, they will want more and they will choose terror again. A nation that support terror so badly even on peace talks and when Israel retreats wont give up on terror so easily.
But the rate that they are multiplying gazaa and the westbank wont be enough for them and sooner or later, with the existence of a palestinien country, they will want more and they will choose terror again. A nation that support terror so badly even on peace talks and when Israel retreats wont give up on terror so easily.
