Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 111610	2010-08-03 22:46:00	Bring our boys back!	bk T (215)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1124444	2010-08-05 01:38:00	ITT: bk T gets ****ing owned.	roddy_boy (4115)
1124445	2010-08-05 01:45:00	T It is conveniently overlooked that Afghanistan under the Talliban, gave refugue and support to Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaida, allowing them to run a major network of terrorist training camps, and export Islamic terrorism not only to the middle east but into the heartland of the Western Alliance. It was in response to the attack of 11 September on New York and Washington, that lead to the decision to take on the Talliban and Al Quaida head on in Afghanistan. Its equally convenient to overlook the fact the American CIA openly trained and funded Al-Qaeda in the late 80's including what we call "terrorist tactics" against Russian savilian targets not just military. Its equally convenient to overlook The US government once backed Saddam Hussein into Power and supported him while he was "West" friendly. These wars are about regional and resource control. Al-Qaeda is basically a mercenary group for hire, several countries that know they cant go head on against the US military are using Al-Qaeda. These wars are not about "freedom" or "protecting our way of life", or any of that feel good about ourselves crap. Religion is a weapon used to control those on both sides, but not the root cause.	Battleneter2 (9361)
1124446	2010-08-05 02:24:00	Its equally convenient to overlook the fact the American CIA openly trained and funded Al-Qaeda in the late 80's including what we call "terrorist tactics" against Russian savilian targets not just military. Wong, very wong. The US supported the Mujahideen, Ahmad Shah Massoud the key player funded by the CIA against the Soviets, and later he was fighting the Taliban. While the Taliban do consist of some former Mujahideen fighters, but they are not the same at all. The ISI - Pakistani intelligence were key players in making the Taliban during the 90s. Ahmad Shah Massoud was the biggest anti-taliban player in Afghanistan. Assassinated two days before 9/11. Don't get into the anti-war/anti-US BS that Taliban are all anti-Soviet fighter. It is the Northern Alliance that are ex-anti-soviets and they were fighting WITH the Americans against the Taliban. In fact they have been fighting the Taliban since the Soviet withdrawal. These wars are about regional and resource control. Al-Qaeda is basically a mercenary group for hire, several countries that know they cant go head on against the US military are using Al-Qaeda. These wars are not about "freedom" or "protecting our way of life", or any of that feel good about ourselves crap. Religion is a weapon used to control those on both sides, but not the root cause. It's far more complex than that. Al Qaeda operates on the basis of 'terrorism by proxy' or 'franchise terrorism' where they do very little themselves, rather they encourage people to affiliate with them, provide VERY limited support and even less leadership. They are just there to get people to join their cause rather than their organization. And that's where the problem lies, the Taliban can be defeated because they exist, they have logistical networks they have a chain of command (at some level at least). Al Qaeda does not. They barely exist, there is "no one" to target to disable them operationally speaking, but in the same sense anyone would be affiliated with them and ready to cause chaos. Countries? Seriously man? You really need to read up on the subject matter, you are mission the point of their entire doctrine.	Cato (6936)
1124447	2010-08-05 04:14:00	You cant defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan they are from the majority Pashtuns. The Taliban made a bad choice when they supported Al Quada I am pretty sure from the grief it has caused them in Afganshistan they would choose differently again. We cant win in Afghanistan by just killing Taliban but I dont see a problem killing them, they are evil buggers. Matter of fact they are on par withe the Khmer rouge as far as evility goes imo. Because they got one of ours we could learn from the German army procedure used against partisans and kill 100 of them for one of us. Any fighting and killing Taliban is good training for our troops. If you are a grunt do want to run around Waiberia pretending to play soldiers or get a chance to wax some real enemy, albeit lightly armed enemy.	prefect (6291)
1124448	2010-08-05 04:50:00	You are right Cato. Personel in the armed forces are vthere by choise. Many of them sign up especially to serve overseas. Same applied to the Vietnam Conflict. all those guys were volunteers who signed up to go there. Re. the Vietnam Conflict, do you have any evidence that "all those guys were volunteers who signed up to go there". Surely military units were sent to Vietnam because of their specialist training. I would be very surprised if there were many people who had the option of signing up to go there.	martynz (5445)
1124449	2010-08-05 05:39:00	New Zealand has not sent conscriptees on active service since the second world war, and for K Force, and the Malayan emergency, and the confrontation with Indonesia, troops were directly recruited from civilian life to serve in those conflicts. There was no shortage of willing volunteers. At the time of the Viet Nam War, the New Zealand Army was an entirely volunteer military force, and whilst many serving members of the force were sent to Viet Nam, they were volunteer professional soldiers, not conscriptees. The NZ Army also regularly held recruiting drives for men to join the infantry, and there was no secret about it that by so joining, they would do a tour in Viet Nam. Additionally, up till 1978, NZ has an excellent incentive scheme to entice volunteers for active service - it was called the rehab loan, which could be used for buying a house, or better still get onto a farm, at extremely attractive rates of interest. I know of quite a few country lads who joined to serve in Viet Nam to qualify for a rehab loan. ( It is a shame that it was discontinued.) Anyone who volunteers to serve in the Armed Forces in peace time, with the idea that they are exempt from active service if the National need arrives, or if the gevernment of the day decides to send troops to a conflict due to defence pact or other reasons, is living in an unreal world. If you can't take a joke you shouldn't have joined	KenESmith (6287)
1124450	2010-08-05 06:00:00	Ken my point was that nobody could voluntarily sign up with the guarantee that they would be sent to Vietnam so its incorrect to say that all the Kiwis who served in Vietnam had joined for that specific reason.	martynz (5445)
1124451	2010-08-05 06:15:00	Reading all too many of the posts on this thread and many others, there appears to be too many prepared to demonise the United States, either from being unaware of the real facts behind an issue, or because they accept the comments of individuals and groups who have anti American or Western agendas. There is no arguement that successive US administrations have made some serious mistakes, by supporting despots, who abused their position in government, but were solely supported for their anti communist stance. Some of the more notable being Trujillo in Cuba, Ngo Dinh Diem in Viet Nam, and supporting Suddam Hussein against Iran. The political climate at the time was opposition to communism, the leaders of the USSR openly stated their aim was to bury the Capitalist West, and the domino theory of that time, espoused the idea that exported revolutionary communism would roll through both SE Asia and Latin America from one country to the next. Successive American governments have assisted Governments in these areas that opposed communist insurrection, irrespective of their disregard for the civil rights of the populations of their countries. In defense of the American stance in these cases, the leaders of the various communist inspired insurrections had little or no intention of allowing any form of democratic government once they had gained control. (Name one that is genuinely democratic today) These various American military adventures have cost the United Staes heavily both in wealth and American lives. With respect to Iraq, the American reasons for supporting Saddam Hussein against Iran are obvious, he was fighting a war against Iran and Iran's revolutionary leaders had seriously embarrassed the United States, however Saddam Hussein was a loose canon, who went on to brutally suppress his own people, de stabilise the Gulf area and attempt to permanently annex Kuwait. The tragedy with hindsight, is that George Bush senior did not follow through desert storm and solve the problem then. In another generation there will still be arguements about the rights and wrongs of ousting Saddam Hussein - he needed to be taken out - he was a vicious despot - and the Americans and British did the world a service in doing so. The Iraqi people welcomed the demise of Suddam Husswein and the Baathist government The tragedy is the US lost the peace - Donald Rumsfeld deliberately refused the requests of the US military experts to provide sufficient troops to neccessary maintain peace and law and order after the conflict, and this was further compounded by the Americans not being prepared to use Iraqi troops and police to assit in controlling the situation after the fighting stopped. These forces that could have been put to good use were disbanded, the Iraqis involved were thrown out of work, accommodation and lost all there personal security and many of them then turned to the forces opposing the occupation. No one can deny that American Governments have made many mistakes, but they have provided a security umbrella for most of the western world since 1945, and got precious little thanks from many in the free world for their sacrifice in national wealth and American lives.	KenESmith (6287)
1124452	2010-08-05 06:16:00	New Zealand has not sent conscriptees on active service since the second world war, and for K Force, and the Malayan emergency, and the confrontation with Indonesia, troops were directly recruited from civilian life to serve in those conflicts. There was no shortage of willing volunteers. At the time of the Viet Nam War, the New Zealand Army was an entirely volunteer military force, and whilst many serving members of the force were sent to Viet Nam, they were volunteer professional soldiers, not conscriptees. The NZ Army also regularly held recruiting drives for men to join the infantry, and there was no secret about it that by so joining, they would do a tour in Viet Nam. Additionally, up till 1978, NZ has an excellent incentive scheme to entice volunteers for active service - it was called the rehab loan, which could be used for buying a house, or better still get onto a farm, at extremely attractive rates of interest. I know of quite a few country lads who joined to serve in Viet Nam to qualify for a rehab loan. ( It is a shame that it was discontinued.) Anyone who volunteers to serve in the Armed Forces in peace time, with the idea that they are exempt from active service if the National need arrives, or if the gevernment of the day decides to send troops to a conflict due to defence pact or other reasons, is living in an unreal world. If you can't take a joke you shouldn't have joined Rehab loan a rip off joke, people in airforce posted to Singapore for two years got it. They lived in nice bungalows most with a maid, never had a bullet fired at them. Perhaps the singlys were worthy of it because they got less money than a marriedys.	prefect (6291)
1124453	2010-08-05 06:18:00	www.google.com	Cato (6936)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7