Pakistan school Attack
Discussion
BIANCO said:
KareemK said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
KareemK said:
Afghanistan?
The planet is an infinitely more dangerous place for westerners now than it was before we started meddling/invading.
As I recall, 9/11 was actually before we got involved in Afghanistan. So "doing nothing" was never an option after that.The planet is an infinitely more dangerous place for westerners now than it was before we started meddling/invading.
The French, Germans, Japanese and Italians etc all lost people in the 9/11 attack but never invaded Afghanistan.
It doesn't detract from my point about remaining neutral as the yanks did in 1982 when a UK territory (protectorate) was attacked.
Rogue86 said:
We didnt invade Afghanistan either, it was a counter-insurgency. The Taliban weren't voted into power, they took it by massacring civilians in Kabul.
Not quite - they won because they looked like they were going to be the winning side, so tribes and factions switched over to them. Just like how 'we' won in late 2001, before squandering it.Lessons there re the rout of Iraqi forces by ISIS that were not - quelle suprise - learned.
Rogue86 said:
They "won" by slaughtering civilians and imposing strict lifestyle laws enforced by capital punishment. We "won" by giving women rights, building schools and reinstalling a Government with a more capable Armed Force to defend itself. How is that the same?
Give up. He (KK) will always have a reason why it's the fault of the evil west, while trying to gently defend the actions of those glorious freedom fighters. Freedom of speech and all that, but f
k me it makes me sick. Rogue86 said:
They "won" by slaughtering civilians and imposing strict lifestyle laws enforced by capital punishment. We "won" by giving women rights, building schools and reinstalling a Government with a more capable Armed Force to defend itself. How is that the same?
No - that's what they did after they won, and what we did after we won . . . (And I fear the new Afghan army will prove as capable as the new Iraqi one - partly back to my first point that winning in these circumstances is in effect a confidence trick. Individuals, groups, clans, don't want to be on the losing side, so in order to 'win' you have to look like you're going to win).
KareemK said:
True, the mulled wine befuddled my Iraq and Afghan invasion histories.
It doesn't detract from my point about remaining neutral as the yanks did in 1982 when a UK territory (protectorate) was attacked.
US was certainly not neutral - they supported UK in many ways inc supply of air to air ordnanceIt doesn't detract from my point about remaining neutral as the yanks did in 1982 when a UK territory (protectorate) was attacked.
they provided Intel inc satellite imagery
they also offered a carrier complete with air wing to be put under the command of the UK
get you facts right?
Octoposse said:
o - that's what they did after they won, and what we did after we won . . .
(And I fear the new Afghan army will prove as capable as the new Iraqi one - partly back to my first point that winning in these circumstances is in effect a confidence trick. Individuals, groups, clans, don't want to be on the losing side, so in order to 'win' you have to look like you're going to win).
the Afghan army is largely composed of those who were previously Northern Alliance or their supporters(And I fear the new Afghan army will prove as capable as the new Iraqi one - partly back to my first point that winning in these circumstances is in effect a confidence trick. Individuals, groups, clans, don't want to be on the losing side, so in order to 'win' you have to look like you're going to win).
they are nothing like the Iraqi army - to them the fight against the Taliban is very personal
whilst working with ISAF their actions have been largely tempered/kept under control - but when they are finally able to operate alone then the Taliban and their supporters better watch out because they will do anything to kill the Taliban and their supporters - its going to get very, very nasty
grand cherokee said:
KareemK said:
True, the mulled wine befuddled my Iraq and Afghan invasion histories.
It doesn't detract from my point about remaining neutral as the yanks did in 1982 when a UK territory (protectorate) was attacked.
US was certainly not neutral - they supported UK in many ways inc supply of air to air ordnanceIt doesn't detract from my point about remaining neutral as the yanks did in 1982 when a UK territory (protectorate) was attacked.
they provided Intel inc satellite imagery
they also offered a carrier complete with air wing to be put under the command of the UK
get you facts right?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/29/world/europe/fal...
Here's a snippet:
But the memo said Mrs. Thatcher rejected the president’s appeal for talks three times, becoming more emphatic each time. “Britain had not lost precious lives in battle and sent an enormous task force to hand over the queen’s islands to a contact group,” Mrs. Thatcher told him, adding a brusque reminder that Britain had been forced to “act alone, with no outside help,” in recovering the islands, an oblique reference to the American refusal to be drawn directly into the conflict on the British side.
Yes, secretly the yanks passed some info to us but that was sparse support and they were certainly never going to put boots on the ground or involve their forces. Unlike us in Afghanistan or anywhere else come that.
And BTW even now the US refuses to support the UK's stance over the Falklands.
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/06/13/us-remain-neut...
http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/u-s-to-remain-neut...
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/06/13/us-remain-neut...
http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/u-s-to-remain-neut...
KareemK said:
Now you need to get your facts right. The US was officially neutral during the falklands war, try this for just one of many articles you can google:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/29/world/europe/fal...
Here's a snippet:
But the memo said Mrs. Thatcher rejected the president’s appeal for talks three times, becoming more emphatic each time. “Britain had not lost precious lives in battle and sent an enormous task force to hand over the queen’s islands to a contact group,” Mrs. Thatcher told him, adding a brusque reminder that Britain had been forced to “act alone, with no outside help,” in recovering the islands, an oblique reference to the American refusal to be drawn directly into the conflict on the British side.
Yes, secretly the yanks passed some info to us but that was sparse support and they were certainly never going to put boots on the ground or involve their forces. Unlike us in Afghanistan or anywhere else come that.
and the air to air ordnance and the offer of a carrier complete with air wing?http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/29/world/europe/fal...
Here's a snippet:
But the memo said Mrs. Thatcher rejected the president’s appeal for talks three times, becoming more emphatic each time. “Britain had not lost precious lives in battle and sent an enormous task force to hand over the queen’s islands to a contact group,” Mrs. Thatcher told him, adding a brusque reminder that Britain had been forced to “act alone, with no outside help,” in recovering the islands, an oblique reference to the American refusal to be drawn directly into the conflict on the British side.
Yes, secretly the yanks passed some info to us but that was sparse support and they were certainly never going to put boots on the ground or involve their forces. Unlike us in Afghanistan or anywhere else come that.
do you believe everything in the press?
there is far more goes on behind the scenes that will never enter the public realm - meetings with no minutes etc etc - and security issues to which the PM is not privy (plausible deniability)
not forgetting the support of the French (for once) with providing extensive expertise as to how to defeat Exocet missiles
Edited by grand cherokee on Monday 29th December 11:22
I don't really see what the Falklands has to do with anything. It is possible for two intelligent and decent people to have conflicting views re the ownership of the Falklands. I think they're British, but someone else who believed them to be Argentinian wouldn't necessarily be a bad person. Each government is entitled to their own view.
That's not the case with the Taliban or IS. There is only one reasonable stance to take, and that is to wish them eliminated like the vermin they are. Anyone who doesn't subscribe to that view can die with them, for all I care.
That's not the case with the Taliban or IS. There is only one reasonable stance to take, and that is to wish them eliminated like the vermin they are. Anyone who doesn't subscribe to that view can die with them, for all I care.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I don't really see what the Falklands has to do with anything. It is possible for two intelligent and decent people to have conflicting views re the ownership of the Falklands. I think they're British, but someone else who believed them to be Argentinian wouldn't necessarily be a bad person. Each government is entitled to their own view.
That's not the case with the Taliban or IS. There is only one reasonable stance to take, and that is to wish them eliminated like the vermin they are. Anyone who doesn't subscribe to that view can die with them, for all I care.
+1That's not the case with the Taliban or IS. There is only one reasonable stance to take, and that is to wish them eliminated like the vermin they are. Anyone who doesn't subscribe to that view can die with them, for all I care.
but it means military operations in this country as there are in certain sectors groups of people who support the Taliban/IS - hence 'Brits' going to fight for these groups
Edited by grand cherokee on Monday 29th December 11:32
grand cherokee said:
and the air to air ordnance and the offer of a carrier complete with air wing?
do you believe everything in the press?
there is far more goes on behind the scenes that will never enter the public realm - meeting with no minutes etc etc
not forgetting the support of the French (for once) with providing extensive expertise as to how to defeat Exocet missiles
Jeez.do you believe everything in the press?
there is far more goes on behind the scenes that will never enter the public realm - meeting with no minutes etc etc
not forgetting the support of the French (for once) with providing extensive expertise as to how to defeat Exocet missiles
You're privy to those off the record meetings are you?
How do you know whats said behind closed doors???
The snippets I quote are from released Govt papers:
Just how prickly was revealed on Friday by the publication of British government papers covering the period, under a rule that mandates the release of hitherto secret documents after 30 years. The papers, including records of the Thatcher cabinet and her occasional prickliness toward Reagan, have added spice to what was previously known about rocky patches in their relationship.
Yes, Reagan said that if our 1 carrier was destroyed he'd rent us one but that was it. At that point we'd have been f
ked anyway if they were sinking our only carrier.This is hardly support though and the papers released make clear Thatcher wasn't happy with the yanks over their falklands stance.
KareemK said:
Jeez.
You're privy to those off the record meetings are you?
How do you know whats said behind closed doors???
The snippets I quote are from released Govt papers:
Just how prickly was revealed on Friday by the publication of British government papers covering the period, under a rule that mandates the release of hitherto secret documents after 30 years. The papers, including records of the Thatcher cabinet and her occasional prickliness toward Reagan, have added spice to what was previously known about rocky patches in their relationship.
Yes, Reagan said that if our 1 carrier was destroyed he'd rent us one but that was it. At that point we'd have been fked anyway if they were sinking our only carrier.
This is hardly support though and the papers released make clear Thatcher wasn't happy with the yanks over their falklands stance.
don't be silly - I'm not privy to secret meetings - but what is released via the press for 'public consumption' does not mean its an accurate record of what really happenedYou're privy to those off the record meetings are you?
How do you know whats said behind closed doors???
The snippets I quote are from released Govt papers:
Just how prickly was revealed on Friday by the publication of British government papers covering the period, under a rule that mandates the release of hitherto secret documents after 30 years. The papers, including records of the Thatcher cabinet and her occasional prickliness toward Reagan, have added spice to what was previously known about rocky patches in their relationship.
Yes, Reagan said that if our 1 carrier was destroyed he'd rent us one but that was it. At that point we'd have been f
ked anyway if they were sinking our only carrier.This is hardly support though and the papers released make clear Thatcher wasn't happy with the yanks over their falklands stance.
that's why intelligence agencies/military do not trust politicians
for example - when UK special operators were incorporated into JSOC in Iraq the PM was supposed to approve their target list.......lol!
politicians are always thinking of re election/books/speaking tours etc etc - and they are notorious for 'pillow talk'
how do you know a politician is lying? - his/her lips are moving
Edited by grand cherokee on Monday 29th December 11:43
grand cherokee said:
don't be silly - I'm not privy to secret meetings
Then don't quote them, it makes your argument ridiculous as you are hypothesising about things that may or may not have happened with the emphasis on 'may not'.I'll go with released papers thanks and those papers show that the yanks were by-and-large neutral and remain so.
KareemK said:
Then don't quote them, it makes your argument ridiculous as you are hypothesising about things that may or may not have happened with the emphasis on 'may not'.
I'll go with released papers thanks and those papers show that the yanks were by-and-large neutral and remain so.
I said I am not privy to secret meetings........think about it?I'll go with released papers thanks and those papers show that the yanks were by-and-large neutral and remain so.
anyway getting bored and can no longer bother with you trying to 'score points'
KareemK said:
Jeez.
You're privy to those off the record meetings are you?
How do you know whats said behind closed doors???
The snippets I quote are from released Govt papers:
Just how prickly was revealed on Friday by the publication of British government papers covering the period, under a rule that mandates the release of hitherto secret documents after 30 years. The papers, including records of the Thatcher cabinet and her occasional prickliness toward Reagan, have added spice to what was previously known about rocky patches in their relationship.
Yes, Reagan said that if our 1 carrier was destroyed he'd rent us one but that was it. At that point we'd have been fked anyway if they were sinking our only carrier.
This is hardly support though and the papers released make clear Thatcher wasn't happy with the yanks over their falklands stance.
You're forgetting that in 1982, a period during which American-Soviet relations underwent a deep-freeze, the US had immediate and pressing concerns in S. America, and Argentina specifically, which meant it couldn't automatically side with the UK. The Argentinian Junta was a staunch US ally and an important component, in Washington's eyes, of a network of Govts across that continent dedicated to crushing a recrudescence of leftist political movements manipulated by Moscow.You're privy to those off the record meetings are you?
How do you know whats said behind closed doors???
The snippets I quote are from released Govt papers:
Just how prickly was revealed on Friday by the publication of British government papers covering the period, under a rule that mandates the release of hitherto secret documents after 30 years. The papers, including records of the Thatcher cabinet and her occasional prickliness toward Reagan, have added spice to what was previously known about rocky patches in their relationship.
Yes, Reagan said that if our 1 carrier was destroyed he'd rent us one but that was it. At that point we'd have been f
ked anyway if they were sinking our only carrier.This is hardly support though and the papers released make clear Thatcher wasn't happy with the yanks over their falklands stance.
Right or wrong in terms of the moral wisdom of backing Galtieri during the Dirty War, you have to contextualise Washington's attitude to Britain during the Falklands conflict.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff