Screw Tony Blair And War on Terror

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Gregster: Peace is a precious thing, and precious things have a price, and that price is often hardship and sacrifice. I should think a Brit should know better than anyone the awful cost of a head of state ignoring the threat in his backyard, appeasing a tyrant and hoping the problem goes away. Neville Chamberlain thought he was doing the right thing avoiding war with Hitler, and as a result of his cautious altruism, England was very nearly bombed flat.

Good post Gregster. I Just wanted to highlight this part, as I think it makes a heck of a lot of sense.

BTW...Welcome to IW. [img]smile.gif[/img] See ya around the boards. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Nacht

Ditto what Nacht. just said. Welcome to the boards and good post Gregster.

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Grungi: why do americans always say they won the war for us? FACT: You helped but you did NOT win it for us, you joined late because your people didnt care what happened in europe, only started helping once it affected the american people personally (ie lost family at pearl harbour) but for that America would now have joined, as for the outcome of that? well in my opinion england could have held on, would have just taken alot longer, germany had masses of problems at home to deal with and given enough time hitler would have been deposed and the armies would have started to rebel (take people like rommel who got backstabbed, army wont stand for that kind of thing for long) but fact is IF england had of been wiped out, you know who was next, invasion plans for america were already on the table in germany and america would have been hard put to defend itself if all of europe fell to the nazis, so lets put it another way: but for america and england WORKING TOGETHER all of us would be speaking german, we'd have both been screwed if we didnt help each other out. i really dont want to hear another american saying how they saved the brits asses in world war II, i studied it in depth for years and trust me all you did was provide much needed help albeit a little too late, dont you start believing hollywood that the 2nd world war only started when america joined, if you can only believe tv then watch "band of brothers" because thats very very realistic to what actually happened and also take note of things like operation market garden in which 1000* more british soldiers were killed than americans.

Good points Grungi, and I, for one, agree with them. Mostly. Yes, I happen to be one of those that believe that Europe would have gone down in flames without America. I believe this because I, too, have studied WWII, in quite thorough detail. And, knowing what I know, I also happen to believe that America would *also* have gone down in flames if we hadn't gotten involved in the war when we did. If we hadn't been attacked by Japan, and hadn't gotten involved in the war, and hadn't massively re-oriented our entire infrastructure to war, just when we did, I have very little doubt Hitler would have marched right over the top of us.

As for the WTC september the 11th it IS a problem for the civilised world but america overreacted massively as its the first time they really had an attack made on them since world war 2, the IRA blew up and killed plenty of people in england but we dont go over to ireland and wipe them out because they are hiding the IRA, admittedly the scale is smaller but they been doing it for a 100 years.

Erm...correct me if I'm wrong, but, didn't the English get in quite a few low-grade battles...excuse me...police actions against the IRA? I've read about quite a few deaths, on both sides of the aisle, up in Notrhern Ireland. So dont get all self-righteous and saw that England never retaliated. No, England didn't 'go over to Ireland and wipe them out'. Neither did the US 'go over to Afghanistan and wipe them out'. We went in and *selectively* killed military targets and removed a corrupt government that was quite firmly in bed with the terrorists that attacked the WTC.

The muslim terrorists should be wiped off this earth, not imprisoned, but killed every single one of them IMO but not at the expense of world freedom or innocent lives being slaughtered. Muslims themselves i have plenty of friends who are muslim BUT some of their views are disgusting and i think the religion itself has good ideals but the CULTURE of muslims is disgusting, as in the way they treat women in public etc (they do normally have a very loving family life behind the scenes) , but bear in mind its the way fundamentalists intepret the qu'ran that causes problems, stop hating muslims and concentrate on the extremist element,

Agreed!

i mean afterall the rest of the world doesnt hate america because of deep south racists, you cannot hold an entire creed race or class responsible because of a small group of their numbers.

Nope, the world just seems to hate us because we're Americans. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

In this instance war is not the answer on any front because there is no single enemy to war with, its not a country its not even a religion, its simply terrorists, Saddam hussein is a terrorist, most of iraq is propagandered into the ground and everyone is scared shitless over what he might do, remove saddam hussein and the majority of his closest cabinet and advisers and overnight you'll have just another middle eastern country with no world problems. saddam hussein should be assassinated and quick, dont need to bomb iraq as that wont solve anything, just take the guy out and fast. Saying the war is only for oil which comes from the muslim sides argument is cynical and only partially true, obviously most of the politicians are looking at the oil side of things and wanting control over it, but to think that the real reason that the majority of people want to get rid of saddam is because of oil? thats total bollocks and an unfair argument, its because saddam IS a serious threat to world peace IMO he should die horribly.

Again, Agreed 100%. Are you sure you're not really a Conservative in disguise?

the reason america is so hated is because they have to be involved in world politics continaully and put their noses into other peoples business which is exactly why the british empire was so hated when we did the same, america should have no more say than any of the other civilised countries, who should all work together to help the world now, we are in a civilised society and we need to be united, NOT have america making their own rules and NOT be led by the UN who are pretty pathetic too, we need a world security council with balls but ruled by a fair vote and being represented by the important countries.

Hmmmm...nope, I'm sorry, here you're wrong. America is hated mostly because of who, or more precisely, what we are. The biggest, strongest, richest, most free country in the world.

And, for clarification, America doesn't 'stick it's nose' into world affairs just for the fun of it. We do it for several reasons. Treaties with attacked countries is one(witness the current China/Taiwan situation). Another is because of a threat that has potential impact on the whole world(i.e. Saddam and his WoMD). Yet another is, quite simply, because we are *ASKED to help(that little Kuwait/Iraq/Coalition dust-up about a decade ago).

as for our illustrious leader Tony blair, hes a proven liar and a right slimey politician, but then most of them are, i preferred john major because he was bland and grey and boring, blair thinks hes a man of the people and is constantly trying to prove it, the thicker ones actually believe it, anyone with sense doesnt trust him as far as they can throw him, its fine to back bush as long as hes backing him 100 percent because he believes hes right, but i dont think he is backing him for those reasons.

Well, like I told Gilgamesh...from the perspective of an average American(i.e. ME )I like Blair, and what he's doing. But since A) I dont have to actually *live* with him and the decisions he makes, and B) Dont really have a say anyway, since I cant vote there, you have to take my opinion in the proper perspective....a simple opinion. [img]smile.gif[/img]

can people remember if your on this forum that automatically means you cant be an extremist muslim so were all on the same side (computer games are sinful to extreme muslims as are films and pretty much everything not involving beards [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) and if your a human being then the things you should be looking for are respect and world peace (not individual peace as wars are unavoidable and sometimes a good thing in the long run). Pls pls pls pls pls never believe america won the 2nd world war singlehanded and but for them we'd all be nazis, if you truly believe that then you dont understand history.

Good closing...I think I'm just going to leave it alone and end my own post now. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Good post Grungi. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Nacht

EDIT: Cuz I cant seem to freakin spell this morning!

[ 11-27-2002, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Nachtrafe ]

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Grungi: ah and good point about afghanistan, these days wars are not wars anymore, they are media wars, you cant shoot people unless they are pure evil and you certainly cant take casulties or the media tear you up, personally i think the media should be severly restricted in what they can and cant do, much as id like to know whats going on in wars i dont like the fact that our troops are restricted to what they can and cant do when its THEIR lives at risk, thats not on and its the medias fault, like having to open fire only when fired upon, thats bullshit IMO, if someone has a gun and is aiming it at you then you take them out first, atm it works because most of the people fighting vs US and Britain arent very good shots or dont have good weapons but what if we come up against a well organised well equipped fighting force? would be a massacre as they know our weakness, i hope that day doesnt come, or if it does the media gets told to eff off and are shot if they try and poke their cameras in places where it endangers lives. im all for tv and news etc but there should be limits on what can and cant be done and tried and no thats not a fascist view for those freedom of speech people, media need controls too.

LOLOL...Are you *ABSOLUTELY SURE* you're not a conservative in disguise? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Great post again Grungi!

Nacht

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Grungi: woah i posted alot, get annoyed when americans keep going on about how they won worldwar 2 [img]tongue.gif[/img] btw religion is a good idealistic view seldom acheived in reallife, you dont know need religion , what you do need is morals - difference between right and wrong love - cheesy but true and respect for others you follow those and you'll be on the right road, most major religions have those concepts at their centre but im yet to see a christian, muslim hindu etc who really believes or follows them, and i met ALOT in my life.

You are also pretty judgemental deciding who is and is not following their faith no? I think you are worng and would say that to some extent there are many christians, muslims, and hindu's who practice love, respect and morals.

And while we are at it, despitre what some may think. I believe that "morals" are almost universally based on religious tennants. The definition fo good and evil is kind of meaningless without religion.

Sorry to seem to be picking on you. Your posts have been clear and pointed and so the logical ones to comment on. While I disagree with you on a lot of things, I can respect your right to the views.[/QUOTE]Was gonna respond to this one too, but I think that the Magik (Muppet) Man did a wonderful job all by himself.

[Timber Loftis]

[quote]Originally posted by Gregster:

Sure, playing armed Whack-A-Mole with the elusive terrorists is time-consuming and frustrating and does not produce splashy newsreel footage that shows how we're winning the big battles that will ultimately lead to victory...but this is a low-intensity asymmetrical war, and it requires a low-intensity solution.

Armed whack-a-mole. ROFL! THanks - I needed that. What imagery.

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Gregster: Sure, playing armed Whack-A-Mole with the elusive terrorists is time-consuming and frustrating and does not produce splashy newsreel footage that shows how we're winning the big battles that will ultimately lead to victory...but this is a low-intensity asymmetrical war, and it requires a low-intensity solution. Armed whack-a-mole. ROFL! THanks - I needed that. What imagery.

LOLOLOLOL...Yeppers. That one cracked me up too. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] Gregster!

[Grungi]

u missed a major point it was ONLY one half of britain close to starving due to the support of the war effort and rationing worked well, there was plenty of food etc and things could have continued as they were for a fair while.

as for nukes? do YOUR history, they hadnt yet been tested, and do you honestly think the threat of nukes stopped madmen like hitler? as if. Plus if england had of fallen easily or capitulated in 1939 you'd have had 6 years before nukes of germany building up a fleet to go invade, so you think what would have happened? 6 years of armed buildup with the whole of europe as their oyster? you'd be speaking german BUT for us if you want that kind of argument, my argument is that england bore the brunt and did the hardwork to begin with and america helped when it suited them, but at least they helped and for that im grateful but i do not apprciate the retarded attitude that america singlehandedly won the war, thats bullshit.

im not saying america didnt help nor that i dont appreciate that help, i do NOT appreciate the arrogant attitude that your the biggest and the best and did everything because thats simply not true, your displaying that arrogant attitude yet again here, thanks for proving my point. You see why the world hates america? me personally i got plenty of american friends and been there twice, i like the place, but they are severely let down by a huge majority of knowledgeless people who make the world a worse place for everyone else, mainly as per usual the politicians (in any country admittedly)

btw battle of britain we had a massive win ratio against a superior enemy, with superior fighters, we did damn well and yes it came close but the fact is it didnt get there, if hitler had of invaded when originally intended after beating france we'd have been in severe problems and so would the rest of the world, america had japan on one side and germany on the other, are you really so arrogant that you think america would have survived? im a realist neither one way or the other, i know you'd have been in problems, and i know we would have too, the fact is a JOINT partnership saved the day so if we cant leave it at plusses and negatives dont say anything at all, america and england kicked nazi scum from this planet and we did it TOGETHER which is the way it should be, but dont let me hear any kinda crap saying otherwise. England saved the day as well in the first place, as did anzac forces and everyone else involved. What about the french resistance and the invaluable intelligence from them that made D-Day a success.

and wtc i dont know any of the figures but northern ireland is england so your looking at thousands if not more yes, and who cares about the skyline? compared to lives a building is nothing.

im chastisting america for not minding their own buisness because they do it in THEIR interests and not the rest of the world as you'd have us believe, if you did it as part of a admittedly utopian world society then id have no problem with it as i honestly believe if a dictator is mistreating his people in a country across the world that it IS our business to interfere with that and put a stop to it.

btw i dont hate america or americans what i hate about america is this arrogant attitude that is displayed continually in forums across the internet that your the best because you have the strongest armed forces etc, were ALL human were ALL equal, stop being so elitist to those who are like that.

blair really is a slimey toerag and america only sees his good points because as i say the media only shows him in that light across the pond, but to be fair to the man at least hes human and makes human descisions hes not a mad dictator hes just another self serving politician.

oh btw im not a conservative [img]tongue.gif[/img] i support no political parties as im under the strong opinion that almost all politicians and the systems they vote in are flawed and make all of them pretty much the same, i believe in simple things in life mainly that mutual respect is one of the most important things you can find, not much to ask of people either.

as for religion thats just a word to describe a faith and im not picking on any, rather on all, i think all religion is based generally on the same precepts anyway and its not for me BUT i think religion itself does good things but the people who follow it rarely get it right and of course its hard because were only human and to ask for perfection (afterlife normally) from humans is an impossiblity so to even try and attain which most religions do is asking alot, but religion has caused hurt and suffering the world over, organised religion i have a problem with, IMO religion is a private thing, sharing it is good only if other people are receptive to it, everyone needs something to believe in so cant argue with that i spose, just not for me at all as i can pick so many holes in religious arguments anytime someone tries to convert me that they end up wondering if their religion is right [img]tongue.gif[/img]

and i hope noone would pick on me im trying to state my views clearly without offending anyone as for me i like PEOPLE individually on their own individual merits, but i personally get offended when someone says to me america "bailed us out in world war2" or "but for america you limeys would have been speaking german" i just dont want to hear that, my country was the buffer between the nazis and the free world and you dont see brits going around saying that to people constantly so why do americans (on every forum on the internet practically same arguments rages) have to bring it up in conversations like this? Lets act like the allies we are, we are the most civilised countries in the world (not excluding anyone but i dont want to list others like japan etc who are up with us [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) so lets work together and make the world a better place.

btw you say im judgemental, but when someone, for example my mother who is a devout christian comes to me forcing me to go to church (when i was younger) and forcing her views upon me, i read the bible cover to cover and IMO thats not what christiniaty is about yet in history thats always the way and i got the same as school again christianity being forced upon us which goes against the fundamentals of the religion, so i believe i can judge that as bad by their own rules so yes im judgemental but as im judging using the rules created by the people im judging i think its fair enough. Im not judging them by my own standards as i keep those seperate.

and religious tennants are based on morals... before religion there were morals so religions are based on morals not the other way round ie cavemen knew it was wrong to kill the people in their clan, not for any good reason its just wrong, so morals were born. (and dont go into one about how they were doing it for selfpreservation etc, obviously they were but morals began from things like this and from then came religion)

sorry i replied so haphazardly to everyones posts, did the best i could.

[Gregster]

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: I doubt that somehow, The Vietcong gave American military forces the whipping of their lives because they were motivated and knew the local terrain.

**imagines JOhn Cleese in "A Fish Called Wanda" Yeeessir, they realy KICKED yer asses, boy! THey really WHUPPED YER HIDES reeeeal goood!"

Well, yes they did initially-- because we started out using European Theater tactics against a guerilla force. Vietnam was where we learned certain hard lessons, and incidentally is the war that led the the creation of the Navy SEALs (who were enormously successful in their missions) as well as being the first war since the American Revolution where the Army made the effort to develop coherent special ops and low-intensity conflict doctrine.

Incidentally, the Army and Marines NEVER lost a single stand-up fight with VC or NVA forces. As for not being able to subdue the enemy totally, that was the result of nothing more than poor strategy and political dithering in Washington (but that's another thread altogether).

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: Apprantly, a lot of the fighting in afghanistan was done by the northen alliances soldiers because the US & britian were afraid of the body bags.

Should we have been macho tough-guys and tried to see how many of our boys we got get shot? I believe it was Gen. George S. Patton who said:

"THe duty of an American soldier is not to die for his country; it's to make some other son of a bitch die for his."

It's Afghanistan, it's their country, it's their turf-- why not let them fight for it? From a tactical standpoint, why not utilize perfectly good resources? Everyone was saying how the ex-muj fighters in the Taliban were such bad-ass, hardy, tough, fearless warriors who knew the terrain (just like those VC you mentioned earlier...remember what I said about lessons learned in Vietname?) So why not deploy the same ex-muj fighters in the NA to fight them? That's just good strategy.

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: also if you look at how much resrouces and money were dovoted to so few fighters, the taleban and so on, managed to do very well.

They got completely boot-stomped in 2.5 months. Apart from pockets of resistance that the Army is mopping up, they are no more. That's hardly doing well.

P.S. Thanks again to NAchtrafe and all the others who've rolled out the "Welcome" mat! [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 11-27-2002, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Gregster ]

[Morgeruat]

about the remark about the US being weak because we're going to the UN for help in the war on terror, the war on terror affects the entire world, it's only right to ask everyone to help. about asking the UN for help with Iraq specifically, that's good politics, it's much better to ask for approval (something the US tends not to do more than we should) than to go off and do our thing (something the international arena screams at us unceasingly for