True, we didn't have much effect. But at least we tried. I would prefer that we hadn't, but I can see why we did.CameronPoe wrote:
Disagree. Principle first always. Nobody had any business fucking with Iraq. The influence Britain has had on US strategy has been microscopic. Rumour has it Blair wanted the Palestine issue to be progressed in exchange for support - I don't see any Palestinian state or any serious actions being taken to create one....Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I disagree with you on that one - we had to go in with the US because someone had to - think what would have happend if it had been entirely unilateral.CameronPoe wrote:
Wrong. Those European nations retarded enough to have invaded Iraq are culpable on the bully front too.
I would rather leave the US to their own misguided devices rather than have us Europeans tarred with the same dirty brush as them all across the world.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
True, we didn't have much effect. But at least we tried. I would prefer that we hadn't, but I can see why we did.CameronPoe wrote:
Disagree. Principle first always. Nobody had any business fucking with Iraq. The influence Britain has had on US strategy has been microscopic. Rumour has it Blair wanted the Palestine issue to be progressed in exchange for support - I don't see any Palestinian state or any serious actions being taken to create one....Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I disagree with you on that one - we had to go in with the US because someone had to - think what would have happend if it had been entirely unilateral.
I would prefer that the US would just stop with their misguided devices.CameronPoe wrote:
I would rather leave the US to their own misguided devices rather than have us Europeans tarred with the same dirty brush as them all across the world.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
True, we didn't have much effect. But at least we tried. I would prefer that we hadn't, but I can see why we did.CameronPoe wrote:
Disagree. Principle first always. Nobody had any business fucking with Iraq. The influence Britain has had on US strategy has been microscopic. Rumour has it Blair wanted the Palestine issue to be progressed in exchange for support - I don't see any Palestinian state or any serious actions being taken to create one....
I did.. now I will spoon feed an explanation to you. If you are "in the moment", in this case recent history, your view of popular opinion is skewed. You are influenced by varying factors that impact you directly.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
You're not making any sense. To me, at least.Kmarion wrote:
Ironically imperialism that developed under the do nothing pacifist attitude. I was addressing Europe (the rest of the world has moved on). You only reiterate my opinion of your complacency. Your current position in time lacks historical context.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Why is it hypocritical?
I'm talking about imperialism. WWII was about stopping imperialism, in a sense (a racially disorted form of imperialism).
"Your current position in time lacks historical context" - what the fuck is that meant to mean?
If you've got a point to make, make it.
Wow your starting to sound like Rumsfeld. You just buried yourself.I support the use of the appropriate level of military force where and when neccessary.Kmarion wrote:
I see, your against the idea but you support the act.. got it..lol.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
We have. We police where the US bullies.
(the key word there being appropriate and neccessary)
Not even close to unilateral.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I disagree with you on that one - we had to go in with the US because someone had to - think what would have happend if it had been entirely unilateral.
United States: 250,000 invasion—158,000 current (1/08)
United Kingdom: 45,000 invasion—4,000 current (4/08)
Poland: 194 invasion—2,500 peak—900 current (2/07)
Australia: 2,000 invasion—~900 current (11/07)
TOTAL INVASION DEPLOYMENT
* ~297,000 troops
CURRENT DEPLOYMENT BY COUNTRY
South Korea: 3,600 peak—933 current (12/07; deployed 5/03)
Romania: 730 peak—397 current (11/07; deployed 7/03)
El Salvador: 380 peak—280 current (12/07; deployed 8/03)
Czech Republic Czech Republic: 300 peak—99 current (11/07)
Azerbaijan: 250 peak—88 current (9/07)
(country) Georgia: 2,000 troops (12/07; deployed 8/03)
Denmark: 545 peak—50 current (12/07, deployed 4/03)
Mongolia: 180 peak—100 current (2/07; deployed 8/03)
Albania: 120 peak—70 current(10/07; deployed 4/03)
Bosnia and Herzegovina: 37 troops (9/07; deployed 6/05)
Ukraine: 1,650 peak-37 current (2/08; deployed 8/03)
Estonia: 40 troops (12/07; deployed 6/05)
* Macedonia: 40 troops (7/07; deployed 7/03)
Kazakhstan: 29 troops (12/07; deployed 9/03)
Moldova: 24 peak—11 current (9/07; deployed 9/03)
Bulgaria: 485 peak—155 current (2/08; deployed 5/03)
Armenia: 46 troops(07/07; deployed 1/05)
Latvia: 136 peak—3 current(10/07; deployed 4/04)
APPROXIMATE TOTAL DEPLOYMENT AS OF 2/08
* 166,000 troops (incl. ~10,200 non-U.S.)
APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF CONTRACTORS AS OF 2/08
* 161,000 contractors: 53% (~85,300) Iraqi, 17% (~27,400) American, 30% (~45,500) Other
o Including 20–30,000 mercenaries as of 12/07
NATO Training Mission – Iraq
Countries involved with the NATO training mission, NATO NTM-I
Slovakia: 110 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 12/07)
Lithuania: 120 peak (deployed 6/03—withdrawn 08/07)
Italy: 3,200 peak (deployed 7/03—withdrawn 11/06)
Netherlands: 1,345 troops (deployed 7/03—withdrawn 3/05)
Spain: 1,300 troops (deployed 4/03—withdrawn 4/04)
Japan: 600 troops (deployed 1/04—withdrawn 7/06)
Thailand: 423 troops (deployed 8/03—withdrawn 8/04)
Honduras: 368 troops (deployed 8/03—withdrawn 5/04)
Dominican Republic: 302 troops (withdrawn 5/04)
Hungary: 300 troops (deployed 8/03—withdrawn 3/05)
Nicaragua: 230 troops (deployed 9/03—withdrawn 2/04)
Singapore: 192 troops (deployed 12/03—withdrawn 3/05)
Norway: 150 troops (deployed 7/03—withdrawn 8/06)
Portugal: 128 troops (deployed 11/03—withdrawn 2/05)
New Zealand: 61 troops (deployed 9/03—withdrawn 9/04)
Philippines: 51 troops (deployed 7/03—withdrawn 7/04)
Tonga: 45 troops (deployed 7/04—withdrawn 12/04)
Iceland: 2 troops (deployed 5/03—withdrawal date unkn
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I may be being thick here, but I just don't have a clue what you're driving at.Kmarion wrote:
I did.. now I will spoon feed an explanation to you. If you are "in the moment", in this case recent history, your view of popular opinion is skewed. You are influenced by varying factors that impact you directly.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
You're not making any sense. To me, at least.Kmarion wrote:
Ironically imperialism that developed under the do nothing pacifist attitude. I was addressing Europe (the rest of the world has moved on). You only reiterate my opinion of your complacency. Your current position in time lacks historical context.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Why is it hypocritical?
I'm talking about imperialism. WWII was about stopping imperialism, in a sense (a racially disorted form of imperialism).
"Your current position in time lacks historical context" - what the fuck is that meant to mean?
If you've got a point to make, make it.
Again, if you've got a specific point to make, rather than vague meaningless statements, please make it.
1. if it had been entirely unilateral.Kmarion wrote:
Wow your starting to sound like Rumsfeld. You just buried yourself.I support the use of the appropriate level of military force where and when neccessary.Kmarion wrote:
I see, your against the idea but you support the act.. got it..lol.
(the key word there being appropriate and neccessary)Not even close to unilateral.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I disagree with you on that one - we had to go in with the US because someone had to - think what would have happend if it had been entirely unilateral.
United States: 250,000 invasion—158,000 current (1/08)
United Kingdom: 45,000 invasion—4,000 current (4/08)
Poland: 194 invasion—2,500 peak—900 current (2/07)
Australia: 2,000 invasion—~900 current (11/07)
2. 47,194 vs 250,000 - that's 81.1224% unilateral - that's pretty close in my book.
If a country sends 1 troop they are committing human life to the cause. To look at bottom line numbers in varying military potential is not practical.
I tried.. I'm not seeming being vague on purpose. Let it marinate around in your head for awhile. I'll hope for the best.Again, if you've got a specific point to make, rather than vague meaningless statements, please make it.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Euro history couldn't get any more tarred if it tried tbh.CameronPoe wrote:
I would rather leave the US to their own misguided devices rather than have us Europeans tarred with the same dirty brush as them all across the world.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
True, we didn't have much effect. But at least we tried. I would prefer that we hadn't, but I can see why we did.CameronPoe wrote:
Disagree. Principle first always. Nobody had any business fucking with Iraq. The influence Britain has had on US strategy has been microscopic. Rumour has it Blair wanted the Palestine issue to be progressed in exchange for support - I don't see any Palestinian state or any serious actions being taken to create one....
I'm sorry, but that's just bollox.Kmarion wrote:
If a country sends 1 troop they are committing human life to the cause. To look at bottom line numbers in varying military potential is not practical.
1 life is less than 250,000 lives.
That's math.
There is no way to equate sending 250,000 troops to invade a country and sending 1.
I tried. Maybe it's the language you're using. But I really can not make head nor tail of it.Kmarion wrote:
I tried.. I'm not seeming being vague on purpose. Let it marinate around in your head for awhile. I'll hope for the best.Again, if you've got a specific point to make, rather than vague meaningless statements, please make it.
A country sending a single person is still committment.
FFS. Yes, but of numerous orders of magnitude less than a country sending 250,000.M.O.A.B wrote:
A country sending a single person is still committment.
So why did you type 'that's bollox' to Kmarions response when I've practically replicated what he wrote?
Regardless of numbers its still committment.
Regardless of numbers its still committment.
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2008-05-06 09:27:10)
He also wrote "To look at bottom line numbers in varying military potential is not practical."M.O.A.B wrote:
So why did you type 'that's bollox' to Kmarions response when I've practically replicated what he wrote?
Regardless of numbers its still committment.
That's bollox.
Well, let's look at the same situation using your logic as an example:Scorpion0x17 wrote:
He also wrote "To look at bottom line numbers in varying military potential is not practical."M.O.A.B wrote:
So why did you type 'that's bollox' to Kmarions response when I've practically replicated what he wrote?
Regardless of numbers its still committment.
That's bollox.
In World War II, the US had 416,000 causalties and the UK had 382,600. Therefore the UK was not involved because the number is smaller.
You just don't get it. If you are against something why send anyone (or even money for that matter)? It's not practical to look at raw numbers because people give what they are capable of. It's not just math, it's basic common sense.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
He also wrote "To look at bottom line numbers in varying military potential is not practical."M.O.A.B wrote:
So why did you type 'that's bollox' to Kmarions response when I've practically replicated what he wrote?
Regardless of numbers its still committment.
That's bollox.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
So, you hate the idea of war, but you agree with your country participating in a war because the big ally across the pond decided to go...? Then you accuse the US of being an imperial power, etc. and claim your nation has moved beyond that.
It appears there is a double standard floating around there, somewhere.
It appears there is a double standard floating around there, somewhere.
'A poll states that 81% of Americans think' would be more surprising than that they think America is on the wrong track.
Liberalism becoming mainstream and all of the fuck America first stuff that comes with it is why Americans feel that we are doomed. Here is why:
A. Illegal immigration
1. higher cost of social services
2. higher cost of insurance
3. higher cost of prison system
4. high cost of law enforcement
5. due to children of illegals getting citizen ship Social Security is screwed for our kids
6. higher cost of education ( more poor kids, bilingual education)
B. Changing American Society
1. changing ethinic make up of USA
2. changing religious make up of USA
3. changing language use in the USA
C. Changing Social Economical structure
1. High cost of housing vs wages
2. Families force into 2 working parents situation breaking down family
3. Lack of job security due to coroporate outsourcing
4. Need to run self in debt with college bills to get a job with livable wage
5. People work vastly more hours now than the typical 40hr/wk
D. Rampant Societal Decay
1. Openly Corrupt Politicians
2. Gang and Drug activity
3. Work not valued by Corporations, no fairness in employment
E. Computer forums
1. Filled with liberals
2. People who can't understand logic
3. People who can't tell right from wrong
4. Blame America first crowd
F. Vikings still haven't won a Super Bowl
1. Despite the Denny Green era
2. Despite being in weak Division
A. Illegal immigration
1. higher cost of social services
2. higher cost of insurance
3. higher cost of prison system
4. high cost of law enforcement
5. due to children of illegals getting citizen ship Social Security is screwed for our kids
6. higher cost of education ( more poor kids, bilingual education)
B. Changing American Society
1. changing ethinic make up of USA
2. changing religious make up of USA
3. changing language use in the USA
C. Changing Social Economical structure
1. High cost of housing vs wages
2. Families force into 2 working parents situation breaking down family
3. Lack of job security due to coroporate outsourcing
4. Need to run self in debt with college bills to get a job with livable wage
5. People work vastly more hours now than the typical 40hr/wk
D. Rampant Societal Decay
1. Openly Corrupt Politicians
2. Gang and Drug activity
3. Work not valued by Corporations, no fairness in employment
E. Computer forums
1. Filled with liberals
2. People who can't understand logic
3. People who can't tell right from wrong
4. Blame America first crowd
F. Vikings still haven't won a Super Bowl
1. Despite the Denny Green era
2. Despite being in weak Division
Didn't Vanuatu donate 80 monkeys to the coalition of the willing?
Umm apart from two or three places in that map, both your countries are involved. Take Cyprus. A British mess to begin with. Yet for at least 20 years the US has been meddling in the situation in an effort to perpetuate the status quo much in the same fashion as the UK.Kmarion wrote:
The idea that you have moved on while survivors of Europe latest blood feud still inhabit the earth tells me that you are in denial. It is however completely understandable to convince yourself that you have moved on. Your (brief) holier than thou attitude is a farce. It's convenient to rest under the umbrella of pacifism while others are out fighting cold wars and securing your national interest (as well).Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I will accept the responsibilty Great Britain carries for our actions in the past.Kmarion wrote:
Currently the worlds most troubled areas are a result of your catastrophic failure in creating borders. If Europeans had "stayed put" you wouldn't even have America to complain about. Two centuries is relatively recent in historical context. So you will have to excuse me if I can't summon the ignorance to give Europe a pass. Especially considering they almost destroyed civilization twice within the last century. You have become complacent while living under your current delusion of pacifism.
However, we learnt the lessons that the US and other parts of the world have yet to learn. Pacifism is not a delusion. War and violence don't work. Peace and negotiation work.
Look at Northern Ireland.
Aren't there British troops in Iraq/Afghanistan?
http://i27.tinypic.com/kef57r.gif
It's actually funny to watch an American and a Brit fighting over who's worst. I'll let you guys sort that one out
and btw that's not where the Balkan peninsula doesn't reach that far north. lol
ƒ³
Bolded for truth.Kmarion wrote:
Currently the worlds most troubled areas are a result of your catastrophic failure in creating borders. If Europeans had "stayed put" you wouldn't even have America to complain about. Two centuries is relatively recent in historical context. So you will have to excuse me if I can't summon the ignorance to give Europe a pass. Especially considering they almost destroyed civilization twice within the last century. You have become complacent while living under your current delusion of pacifism.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
What hypocrisy?Kmarion wrote:
The hypocrisy is nauseating.
1. Great Britain is no longer imperialistic.
2. I think we shouldn't be in the Middle East either.
Great quote I saw somewhere on this forum, but can't remember who:
( paraphrased) "brits lecturing americans about imperialism is like americans lecturing people about obesity" <----GOLD
Since we are throwing the word imperialism around, an interesting read about the evolving nature of it here
*sigh* did you bother to read what I've posted?RAIMIUS wrote:
So, you hate the idea of war, but you agree with your country participating in a war because the big ally across the pond decided to go...? Then you accuse the US of being an imperial power, etc. and claim your nation has moved beyond that.
It appears there is a double standard floating around there, somewhere.
1. I hate all war, but accept that it is sometimes necessary.
2. I opposed our involvement in the invasion of Iraq, but support our troops.
3. I don't believe we had any choice in joining the US in Iraq, for various reasons that I've already outlined.
4. The US is an imperialistic power, and we have moved beyond that stage - how many of the countries that we once owned do we still own?
Silly BBC .loloug wrote:
and btw that's not where the Balkan peninsula doesn't reach that far north. lol
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4094818.stm
Xbone Stormsurgezz