More Argie Bargie
Discussion
Ozzie Osmond said:
Ha, ha, very good. If you want to go and die for the Falklands you just carry on. Perhaps you should take your brave british fuhrer Tony Blair with you - he was always happy to send the nation's soldiers to die for nothing in pointless wars in far off lands. No doubt just like His Toniness you'll be "leading from the back" - happy to send others to the front line whilst hiding in your comfortable bunker. Dangerous fools.
May I ask what nation you are from?Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Anyway, who made you a Moderator? Oh, that's right, you aren't one.
Sorry, did I say you couldn't "join in the debate" then??? I said you did intervene not that "you couldn't intervene" didn't I?Do you understand the written word, yes?
As for being a moderator well I could have guessed it would arrive at some point....the straw man argument. You'd have a point if I'd actually told you do something like, oh I dunno, "stop posting" perhaps...
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
If you find my posts disingenuous then either you have a problem reading and understanding, or you are stupid, or you are (again) willfully misrepresenting me.
...or you just can't express yourself properly...or you like to be deliberately ambiguous.Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Assume whatever you f
king like wee lad.
"Muppet"..."Wee lad"...king like wee lad. 
Very good love.Right...back on topic....as, like all PH threads that don't go as planned, it quickly becomes about the dissenters and not the issues.
Grumfutock said:
...stuff...
I'm sorry but you have not responded to the question GFI said, remind me of the great battlefield victories we scored over the Taliban? Perhaps where the forces were evenly matched as you had said something along the lines of "defeated on the battle field to the point of resorting to guerrilla and terrorist attacks"
When were they ever anything more than a bunch of guerillas???
Did they start out as a regular army with men and equipment that might have ever stood a chance against the might of the US and UK? Did they take us on with armoured divisions and covered by Taliban air support?
I'm not moving the goal posts - just stating the bleedin' obvious. We cannot really lose these so-called "wars" can we? Especially when we are flanked by the US. Yes we'll lose the odd skirmish but it is impossible for us to ultimately be defeated.
Well, can we be???
Anyway I've lost the will to live on this one and its now gone soooo far off topic I've forgotten what the thread is about.
im said:
I'm sorry but you have not responded to the question GF
I said, remind me of the great battlefield victories we scored over the Taliban? Perhaps where the forces were evenly matched as you had said something along the lines of "defeated on the battle field to the point of resorting to guerrilla and terrorist attacks"
When were they ever anything more than a bunch of guerillas???
Did they start out as a regular army with men and equipment that might have ever stood a chance against the might of the US and UK? Did they take us on with armoured divisions and covered by Taliban air support?
I'm not moving the goal posts - just stating the bleedin' obvious. We cannot really lose these so-called "wars" can we? Especially when we are flanked by the US. Yes we'll lose the odd skirmish but it is impossible for us to ultimately be defeated.
Well, can we be???
Anyway I've lost the will to live on this one and its now gone soooo far off topic I've forgotten what the thread is about.
And once again I must insist that you go and read your history.I said, remind me of the great battlefield victories we scored over the Taliban? Perhaps where the forces were evenly matched as you had said something along the lines of "defeated on the battle field to the point of resorting to guerrilla and terrorist attacks"
When were they ever anything more than a bunch of guerillas???
Did they start out as a regular army with men and equipment that might have ever stood a chance against the might of the US and UK? Did they take us on with armoured divisions and covered by Taliban air support?
I'm not moving the goal posts - just stating the bleedin' obvious. We cannot really lose these so-called "wars" can we? Especially when we are flanked by the US. Yes we'll lose the odd skirmish but it is impossible for us to ultimately be defeated.
Well, can we be???
Anyway I've lost the will to live on this one and its now gone soooo far off topic I've forgotten what the thread is about.
1. "When were they ever anything more than a bunch of guerillas???"
Well they took most of the country (90%) in the 1996-2001 civil war and were recognised by several countries. Ever heard of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan? They were the government pre 2001 and were defeated on the battlefield. How do you think we re-took the country?
2. "Did they start out as a regular army with men and equipment that might have ever stood a chance against the might of the US and UK? Did they take us on with armoured divisions and covered by Taliban air support?"
And once again the goal post moves. Now they have to have armoured divisions and air support? Really? Please lay down what you consider a the qualifying conditions for a British victory. This constant changing of criteria is getting very hard to follow! 1st it was we had to be alone, then the enemy had to have helicopters and now this. And you really don't think you aren't moving the goals posts?
I will take your lose of the will to live as an admission that you have no idea what your talking about but lack the moral courage to admit it.
Oakey said:
For those who have just arrived, in the red corner are the armchair generals who feel they know best as to what wars should and shouldn't be fought in the name of democracy, in the blue corner... people who've actually served in the military!
Personally I would insert between "the" and "armchair" the word "fkwit". OK...just so we're clear, you consider the war in Afghanistan to be a British victory and solely a British victory. The Afghans have been defeated by us - yes?
Do you also consider the 'war' in Northern Ireland to also be a military victory for the British?
Do you also consider the 'war' in Northern Ireland to also be a military victory for the British?
Edited by im on Tuesday 15th April 10:25
im said:
OK...just so we're clear, you consider the war in Afghanistan to be a British victory and solely a British victory. The Afghans have been defeated by us - yes?
Do you also consider the 'war' in Northern Ireland to also be a military victory for the British?
Don't be ridiculous - I don't think you really understand what a war is. Do you also consider the 'war' in Northern Ireland to also be a military victory for the British?
Edited by im on Tuesday 15th April 10:25
As a country we have several times been placed in a situation, where our opponents have not been reasonable, have made threats, carried out acts or generally behaved in a way counter to democracy. In response we will have tried diplomacy, had sanctions, made threats etc
But sooner or later, you HAVE to back it up if you say "this far but no further" then you need to have the will and assets to make good on your promises.
However, War in and of itself is rarely one, in the kind of clean strike or obvious ojectives being achieved. However we have placed our enemies into a situation where they have had to be more reasonable and negotiate. In some instances, (eg Northern Ireland) we ourselves have made concession to achieve peace.
Diplomacy by other means.
im said:
OK...just so we're clear, you consider the war in Afghanistan to be a British victory and solely a British victory. The Afghans have been defeated by us - yes?
Do you also consider the 'war' in Northern Ireland to also be a military victory for the British?
At no point, and please go back a read this thread, did I claim the Stan to be a "solely British victory". Please do not try and attribute words that I have not said to me or misquote me.Do you also consider the 'war' in Northern Ireland to also be a military victory for the British?
Edited by im on Tuesday 15th April 10:25
Do I think the war in Afghanistan has been won. Yes. Did we defeat the Afghans? No, we were never at war with the Afghans so how the hell can we defeat them? Do I think the government there stand a chance once the west pulls out? Not a chance.
Regarding Northern Ireland, yes we won. Of course it was a military victory for us. I don't understand how you could see it any other way. One side gives up and surrenders its arms, the other side doesn't?
PIRA were a spent force by the end, having lost far to many willing operators and the support of a lot of the people. A lot of their equipment, arms, explosives and int had been captured or compromised. ACU's had ceased to trust each other as we infiltrated many and sowed the seed of doubt into others. Then there were the own goals or defeats like the Del Woods/Dave Howes killings, Gib, Loughgall etc.
INLA had ceased to be an effective force after the civil war and OIRA were a non entity for years.
And having spent well over 7 years serving in that little shin dig I can talk about this with some authority.
Edited by Grumfutock on Tuesday 15th April 10:55
im said:
OK...just so we're clear, you consider the war in Afghanistan to be a British victory and solely a British victory. The Afghans have been defeated by us - yes?
Do also consider the 'war' in Northern Ireland to also be a military victory for the British?
I'm not sure there's any point continuing this TBH the opinions of some on here ATM are not based on objective argument but rather on childish emotion and blind allegiance to some kind of military imperialism that used to be considered acceptable but came to an and years ago. The fact that the House of Commons vetoed intervention in Syria recently shows the political climate has changed from that in Thatcher and Blair's time. Anyone who thinks Afghanistan or NI were victories needs their head examining. Have to say I thought letting murderers out of prison and declaring amnesty and withdrawing troops was called 'surrender'; obviously some on here have an alternative version of history that allows some other outcome to be considered. Do also consider the 'war' in Northern Ireland to also be a military victory for the British?
Grumfutock said:
Regarding Northern Island, yes we won.
And having spent well over 7 years serving in that little shin dig I can talk about this with some authority.
Do I need to point out the obvious?And having spent well over 7 years serving in that little shin dig I can talk about this with some authority.
As for the Falklands, is it really worth falling out over? We have happily ceded other territories in order to continue peacefully along the way. I don't think I could wholeheartedly support a war with Argentina in order to further establish our rights over some tiny little islands just off their coast.
Gargamel said:
Don't be ridiculous - I don't think you really understand what a war is.
In some instances, (eg Northern Ireland) we ourselves have made concession to achieve peace.
Diplomacy by other means.
Love it In some instances, (eg Northern Ireland) we ourselves have made concession to achieve peace.
Diplomacy by other means.
Perhaps you might like to take up the "what a war really is" topic with our resident forces female Ginetta Girl who lists the Northern Ireland conflict as a "probable military win".
It would appear you can't even agree amongst yourselves on what a war is or what a victory entails and yet I'm the one moving the goal posts
goldblum said:
im said:
OK...just so we're clear, you consider the war in Afghanistan to be a British victory and solely a British victory. The Afghans have been defeated by us - yes?
Do also consider the 'war' in Northern Ireland to also be a military victory for the British?
I'm not sure there's any point continuing this TBH the opinions of some on here ATM are not based on objective argument but rather on childish emotion and blind allegiance to some kind of military imperialism that used to be considered acceptable but came to an and years ago. The fact that the House of Commons vetoed intervention in Syria recently shows the political climate has changed from that in Thatcher and Blair's time. Anyone who thinks Afghanistan or NI were victories needs their head examining. Have to say I thought letting murderers out of prison and declaring amnesty and withdrawing troops was called 'surrender'; obviously some on here have an alternative version of history that allows some other outcome to be considered. Do also consider the 'war' in Northern Ireland to also be a military victory for the British?
10 Pence Short said:
Grumfutock said:
Regarding Northern Island, yes we won.
And having spent well over 7 years serving in that little shin dig I can talk about this with some authority.
Do I need to point out the obvious?And having spent well over 7 years serving in that little shin dig I can talk about this with some authority.
As for the Falklands, is it really worth falling out over? We have happily ceded other territories in order to continue peacefully along the way. I don't think I could wholeheartedly support a war with Argentina in order to further establish our rights over some tiny little islands just off their coast.
Asterix said:
The location is irrelevant (even ignoring the abundance of natural resources) and the populace hold British passports.
Do you have the same view on Gibraltar, the Channel Islands, Isle of White..?
Why do we cling on to Gibralter? What good does it do us, other than to maintain some false connection to a historical empire? Does it make our relations with Spain better, or worse?Do you have the same view on Gibraltar, the Channel Islands, Isle of White..?
As for the others you mention, I don't see there being an ongoing bone of contention with either, so I'm not sure what the point of their inclusion is?
Edited to add- frankly, the location is anything but irrelevant. The Islands are close to Argentina and many thousands of miles from our shores. What need do we have to cling on to some island half way around the world from us?
Asterix said:
The location is irrelevant (even ignoring the abundance of natural resources) and the populace hold British passports.
Do you have the same view on Gibraltar, the Channel Islands, Isle of White..?
They don't care. Until a foreign enemies troops are marching onto their property they couldn't give a fDo you have the same view on Gibraltar, the Channel Islands, Isle of White..?
k. It's sort of a reverse NIMBYism. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff