Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Albatross wrote:Thing is, being muslim they can't drink alcohol - when the feth do they eat Kebabs? I can't eat one unless I'm absolutely steam-rollered.

After the 15th Turkish coffee.

dogma wrote:

Albatross wrote:Thing is, being muslim they can't drink alcohol - when the feth do they eat Kebabs? I can't eat one unless I'm absolutely steam-rollered.

After the 15th Turkish coffee.

Or smoking some herb from a hookah

mattyrm wrote:Seb excuse that wee bit of nationalism.. i am of course well aware that a Christian and a Muslim are essentially physically identical, but for some reason those chickenshit Turks just dont cut it. I mean, im going to be a bit bias for our guys, but I was talking about this with some mates of mine and we couldnt think of a logical reason they would behave that way other than their culture or Religion.

But I explained it, it comes from the relative levels of development in Turkey compared to the US and the UK.

Throughout most of history the soldier was a thug with a weapon first, and a soldier second. The disciplined, professional military is not that common... certainly more common now than ever before thanks to the improvements made in modern militaries training and organisational structures, but still in the minority when you consider how many countries don't have those abilities. You should read up on the Russian army some time, horrendously brutal training and utterly corrupt officer class... that ends up producing horrendously brutal and utterly corrupt grunts. It's nothing to do with being Russian Orthodox, and everything to do with culture, politics and accountability.

Ah, the irony of it all.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091205/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_nobel.

He goes to accept his prize for Peace knowing he just sent another 30,000 Americans to some gakhole to fight a war. Haha. Sad really. If he had balls he'd turn it down but he doesn't so he won't.

Fateweaver wrote:
He goes to accept his prize for Peace knowing he just sent another 30,000 Americans to some gakhole to fight a war. Haha. Sad really. If he had balls he'd turn it down but he doesn't so he won't.

You neither understand the concept of peace, nor the purpose of the Peace Prize (which is minimal at best).

I know peace can only be had through winning wars (at least the Conservatives believe that, I'm sure the UC Berkley students would say otherwise).

It's still ironic. That'd be like Charles Manson winning a humanitarian award WHILE he was killing all those people because he ran into a burning building and saved some 8yo kid.

There are others more deserving of the prize. He won it because of what he SAID he would do during his inauguration speech. If that's all it takes I for sure could lie and bs my way to a Peace Prize. He did it so I'm sure anybody with a brain cell could.

Can't blame the guy really. Just stop and think about the uproar amongst conservative Americans if he had just said 'right that's it - I'm bringing all the troops home tomorrow!' you guys would crucify him. The fact is, there's a job to do and relatively speaking, Afghanistan hasn't received the commitment that Iraq has in recent years. Obama obviously sees Afghanistan as more important to US security. And I agree with him.

That is the beauty of this country. I can disagree.

Yeah, to totally pull out now would create a gakstorm, as someone so eloquently put it. I just remember with Bush in office all the anti-Bush people were criticizing him for NOT pulling out right away and no amount of explaining could convince the lefties that that wasn't in the US best interest either (and I don't mean from a security stand point).

So of course Conservatives are going to question the lefties when they say "well, it's not in the US best interest to pull out of Afghanistan due to security interests."

I just love how the shoe fits fine on one foot (Obamanation) but it happens to be too big or too small on the other foot (Bushnation).

Technically (and I don't mean politically) terrorists from all countries that are against the "big mean West" are a security threat. Pretending the terrorists in Iraq are no more threatening than those in Afghanistan is like trying to convince the public that David Karesh wasn't nearly as evil as Charles Manson.

If you can come up with evidence that Saddam Hussein was even remotely linked to Al Qaida then I'll concede the point.

And I thought the Anti-Bush Mafia were more opposed to the war in Iraq - that was certainly the case here - I thought most people understood the reasons for us being in Afghanistan. Anti-Afghanistan war sentiment is only fairly recent in the UK.

Iraq had/has it's terrorists though. It doesn't matter who leads them, they hate the West.

The thing is what would the rest of the world had done if they were put in our shoes? Would France have been so calm had terrorists crashed a plane into the Eiffel Tower? Would the PM of GB been so calm had terrorists crashed a plane into Big Ben? I'd hate to think either country would have just turned a blind eye and said "well, this sucks but there is no reason we should retaliate. We'll just ramp up security around the rest of our landmarks/national monuments."

The sentiment I get from other countries is that even if Bush picking Iraq was a random choice and not one based on actual facts (and IIRC the leader of the 9/11 attacks is an Iraqi) we should have sat back and did nothing.

I'm a Patriot (and perhaps even a little bit Nationalist) so that means if someone feths with the peace and solidarity of my country you damn right I'll be the first screaming for blood. It baffles me to this day when I hear anti-Bush people from my own country say we shouldn't have done anything at all about 9/11, to have just let it go.

So again, if the Eiffel Tower got taken out and 1,000's killed would any of you Europeans, especially the French, practice what you preach or would you expect your leaders to do what Bush did?

I know of only one sure way to get rid of terrorists of any regime in a given country but it's considered by many to be "genocide and anti-humanitarian." It worked to bring Japan to it's knees, I'm sure it'd do the same against other countries.

Fateweaver wrote:Ah, the irony of it all.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091205/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_nobel.

He goes to accept his prize for Peace knowing he just sent another 30,000 Americans to some gakhole to fight a war. Haha. Sad really. If he had balls he'd turn it down but he doesn't so he won't.

Are you against catching Bin Laden and stopping Al Qaeda?

So again, if the Eiffel Tower got taken out and 1,000's killed would any of you Europeans, especially the French, practice what you preach or would you expect your leaders to do what Bush did?

Invade Afghanistan. Probably. The Taliban were sheltering Al Qaida. What the feth has that got to do with Iraq? Brits were killed on September 11th. And again on July 7th.

and IIRC the leader of the 9/11 attacks is an Iraqi

Nope, don't think so. Couldn't find any refrences to this. Not that it matters. Most of the highjackers were Saudi - Saudi Arabia remains un-invaded.

Fateweaver wrote:
There are others more deserving of the prize. He won it because of what he SAID he would do during his inauguration speech. If that's all it takes I for sure could lie and bs my way to a Peace Prize. He did it so I'm sure anybody with a brain cell could.

That's usually what the Peace Prize is awarded for, at least with respect to American Presidents. You could probably extend that to any hegemonic nation, but we won't know until there actually is another one. If the next Chinese PM wins a Peace Prize for statements about human rights, we'll know.

Wasn't there some Russian scientist who had developed or was working on a vaccine for something.

How do empty promises outweigh that?

No, this is not anti-Obama talk. Had Bush gotten one in the time frame Obama did (ie 2 weeks) than I'd be asking the same questions.

Albatross wrote:

So again, if the Eiffel Tower got taken out and 1,000's killed would any of you Europeans, especially the French, practice what you preach or would you expect your leaders to do what Bush did?

Invade Afghanistan. Probably. The Taliban were sheltering Al Qaida. What the feth has that got to do with Iraq? Brits were killed on September 11th. And again on July 7th.

and IIRC the leader of the 9/11 attacks is an Iraqi

Nope, don't think so. Couldn't find any refrences to this. Not that it matters. Most of the highjackers were Saudi - Saudi Arabia remains un-invaded.

Probably because Saudi Arabia wasn't the organization backing the hijackers.

Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were.

he would have been awarded the noble prize for medicine, not the peace prize.

Kanluwen wrote:

Albatross wrote:

So again, if the Eiffel Tower got taken out and 1,000's killed would any of you Europeans, especially the French, practice what you preach or would you expect your leaders to do what Bush did?

Invade Afghanistan. Probably. The Taliban were sheltering Al Qaida. What the feth has that got to do with Iraq? Brits were killed on September 11th. And again on July 7th.

and IIRC the leader of the 9/11 attacks is an Iraqi

Nope, don't think so. Couldn't find any refrences to this. Not that it matters. Most of the highjackers were Saudi - Saudi Arabia remains un-invaded.

Probably because Saudi Arabia wasn't the organization backing the hijackers.

Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were.

Yeah, that's my point - nationality isn't that important, membership of Al Qaida is.

Fateweaver wrote:Iraq had/has it's terrorists though. It doesn't matter who leads them, they hate the West.

Putting every single terrorist in the same category then giving them the same motive and threat capacity is monumentally stupid. A guy planting roadside bombs in Iraq is not the same thing as a guy with the connections and funding to allow him to blow up. And neither are related at all to the countless terrorist groups that are driven by local issues, such as FARC or the Basque seperatists.

Seriously dude, you need to think before you post.

The thing is what would the rest of the world had done if they were put in our shoes? Would France have been so calm had terrorists crashed a plane into the Eiffel Tower? Would the PM of GB been so calm had terrorists crashed a plane into Big Ben? I'd hate to think either country would have just turned a blind eye and said "well, this sucks but there is no reason we should retaliate. We'll just ramp up security around the rest of our landmarks/national monuments."

Actually, Bush said AQ was responsible and they're in Afghanistan and the rest of the world said alright, and not only supported the attack but deployed troops of our own to aid.

It was when you went and attacked a country with no involvement in the attacks that a lot of countries backed off. That there was any support at all tells you how much goodwill the US had built up before that.

The sentiment I get from other countries is that even if Bush picking Iraq was a random choice and not one based on actual facts (and IIRC the leader of the 9/11 attacks is an Iraqi) we should have sat back and did nothing.

No, none of the attackers were Iraqi. It's been the most talked about event of the last eight years, you really should have the basic facts by now.

I'm a Patriot (and perhaps even a little bit Nationalist) so that means if someone feths with the peace and solidarity of my country you damn right I'll be the first screaming for blood. It baffles me to this day when I hear anti-Bush people from my own country say we shouldn't have done anything at all about 9/11, to have just let it go.

That's a crappy, crappy strawman. The criticism is due to invading a country that wasn't harbouring the terrorists, and supporting that invasion by drawing resources away from the securing and rebuilding of a country that was directly connected to the terrorist attacks.

I know of only one sure way to get rid of terrorists of any regime in a given country but it's considered by many to be "genocide and anti-humanitarian." It worked to bring Japan to it's knees, I'm sure it'd do the same against other countries.

You might only know one way, but that only shows your limited knowledge of the subject, and says nothing about the effective methods of stopping insurgencies.

The british certainly managed to deal with terrorism without resorting to nuclear weapons or even overwhelming military force. They don't get enough recognition for that fact, I reckon, especially over here. To my mind, they've some of the best schemes for dealing with terrorism because of that experience.

Yeah Boss, i served in Northern Ireland, and it was hard for us troops on the ground sometimes, because the things the command always pushed was "hearts and minds"

We basically got told to smile when people insulted us. It was really hard for a young lad like me, and for a long time afterwards i nursed some sort of, warped grudge against Irish people because literally every single person i met when i was in South Armagh absolutely hated me. I remember being outside a post office near Crossmaglen and i said "morning" to a young woman and she said "what the feth is your problem?"

The thing i realised as i got older was that we all get "brainwashed" in some degree. The people that i happened to meet, have been told since birth to hate either catholics or Prods or Brits or whatever, and it takes a certain world understanding with age to realise that there are people from all walks of life, in all countries on earth. There is no such thing as an "evil" country and the whole "patriotism" thing has always annoyed me, i do not think that patriotism is a virtue, and this from a guy who served in Iraq twice, Afghanistan twice, Sierra Leone, Northern Ireland.

With that knowledge, a certain degree of pity washed over me when i was fighting the Taliban. I understand that many of these people are given balaclavas and AK-47s before they can walk properly. What chance do they have? We should wage war if we must, but never give into blind hatred.

Basically I think that alot of these Republican types are far far too happy to see us bomb the gak out of people. Sure im happy to go to Iraq, but i dont glory in the violence. I am also endlessly irritated by peoples ignorance of the situation. Afghanistan is NOT Iraq, and a great many people seem to be ignorant of this. I remain firmly behind the Afghanistan conflict, but the more i think about it, the more i question why we went to Iraq. Being a military man i will never be up in arms about it, or go on a fething peace march. But im definately perplexed as to the point of it all.

I'm sorry you had such a negative experience, and glad you came out of it with such a good perspective. My brother would be very similar to you in outlook, he was also in the Royal Marines. I agree with you about patriotism, I've never been fond of it.

Fateweaver wrote:Wasn't there some Russian scientist who had developed or was working on a vaccine for something.

How do empty promises outweigh that?

He would have won the Nobel for Medicine. There are multiple categories.

The Peace Prize is essentially an award for pleasant, political rhetoric.

dogma wrote:The Peace Prize is essentially an award for pleasant, political rhetoric.

And a way to raise the international profile of a person and their actions towards peace. As a result they often hand it out to someone who is making an effort towards peace, rather than waiting until they've achieved their goals.

Which means you sometimes get a case like José Ramos-Horta, where the peace prize raised considerable international attention to his campaign for East Timorese freedom. Whereas other times you get Yassar Arafat.

mattyrm wrote: I remember being outside a post office near Crossmaglen and i said "morning" to a young woman and she said "what the feth is your problem?"

Wait I thought that was the standard greeting from all women...