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.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

Are you paying attention? It's not a pissing contest. I'm clearly saying that no nation is in the right with regard to invading for the sake of "liberation".

The French and a lot of Western Europe might disagree with you. I seem to recall they currently exist because they were 'liberated'.

By a combination of many nations, which you took all the credit for. Anything else?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

Are you paying attention? It's not a pissing contest. I'm clearly saying that no nation is in the right with regard to invading for the sake of "liberation".

The French and a lot of Western Europe might disagree with you. I seem to recall they currently exist because they were 'liberated'. Or do you think that it was wrong for the Allies to have landed and thrown the Nazis out?

We exist because we were liberated? It could have just as easily been the Soviet Union, granted it would be different, but we would still be 'liberated' and exist.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

Are you paying attention? It's not a pissing contest. I'm clearly saying that no nation is in the right with regard to invading for the sake of "liberation".

The French and a lot of Western Europe might disagree with you. I seem to recall they currently exist because they were 'liberated'. Or do you think that it was wrong for the Allies to have landed and thrown the Nazis out?

We exist because we were liberated? It could have just as easily been the Soviet Union, granted it would be different, but we would still be 'liberated' and exist.

If it was the Soviet Union, you'd be speaking Russian.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

Are you paying attention? It's not a pissing contest. I'm clearly saying that no nation is in the right with regard to invading for the sake of "liberation".

The French and a lot of Western Europe might disagree with you. I seem to recall they currently exist because they were 'liberated'. Or do you think that it was wrong for the Allies to have landed and thrown the Nazis out?

We exist because we were liberated? It could have just as easily been the Soviet Union, granted it would be different, but we would still be 'liberated' and exist.

If it was the Soviet Union, you'd be speaking Russian.

So Poles, Czechs, former Eastern Germans speak Russian now too, thats a first.
Its like saying we speak English because of the US/UK/Canadians, which isnt true.

Much like how Russian immediately replaced German in East Germany.

From what I can tell, Russian was Western Germany's English, aka, it was the language they were taught in School after German.

I don't ever remember hearing about a war of liberation across the continent of Africa against the despots and tyrants that lurk there.

To cheapen Ouze's point; when does "Operation Freedom" hit China?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

Are you paying attention? It's not a pissing contest. I'm clearly saying that no nation is in the right with regard to invading for the sake of "liberation".

The French and a lot of Western Europe might disagree with you. I seem to recall they currently exist because they were 'liberated'. Or do you think that it was wrong for the Allies to have landed and thrown the Nazis out?

We exist because we were liberated? It could have just as easily been the Soviet Union, granted it would be different, but we would still be 'liberated' and exist.

If it was the Soviet Union, you'd be speaking Russian.

So Poles, Czechs, former Eastern Germans speak Russian now too, thats a first.
Its like saying we speak English because of the US/UK/Canadians, which isnt true.

Russia wasn't very friendly to countries it invaded. Former PACT countries can agree to that.

I don't ever remember hearing about a war of liberation across the continent of Africa against the despots and tyrants that lurk there.

Who would waste time in a place with even less chance of improving itself?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
It could have just as easily been the Soviet Union, granted it would be different, but we would still be 'liberated' and exist.

You'll have to forgive me if I highly doubt that.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
It could have just as easily been the Soviet Union, granted it would be different, but we would still be 'liberated' and exist.

You'll have to forgive me if I highly doubt that.

Poland, former Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany would like to talk to you about their existence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

Are you paying attention? It's not a pissing contest. I'm clearly saying that no nation is in the right with regard to invading for the sake of "liberation".

The French and a lot of Western Europe might disagree with you. I seem to recall they currently exist because they were 'liberated'. Or do you think that it was wrong for the Allies to have landed and thrown the Nazis out?

We exist because we were liberated? It could have just as easily been the Soviet Union, granted it would be different, but we would still be 'liberated' and exist.

If it was the Soviet Union, you'd be speaking Russian.

So Poles, Czechs, former Eastern Germans speak Russian now too, thats a first.
Its like saying we speak English because of the US/UK/Canadians, which isnt true.

Russia wasn't very friendly to countries it invaded. Former PACT countries can agree to that.

Yeah and seeing as how we were preceived as Germans we might even have been better off with Nazi rule as the master race. But that doesnt even make sense, were glad someone got rid of the nazi's, we would never want to be part of that.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

Are you paying attention? It's not a pissing contest. I'm clearly saying that no nation is in the right with regard to invading for the sake of "liberation".

The French and a lot of Western Europe might disagree with you. I seem to recall they currently exist because they were 'liberated'. Or do you think that it was wrong for the Allies to have landed and thrown the Nazis out?

We exist because we were liberated? It could have just as easily been the Soviet Union, granted it would be different, but we would still be 'liberated' and exist.

If it was the Soviet Union, you'd be speaking Russian.

So Poles, Czechs, former Eastern Germans speak Russian now too, thats a first.
Its like saying we speak English because of the US/UK/Canadians, which isnt true.

Russia wasn't very friendly to countries it invaded. Former PACT countries can agree to that.

I don't ever remember hearing about a war of liberation across the continent of Africa against the despots and tyrants that lurk there.

Who would waste time in a place with even less chance of improving itself?

That last sentence came across as being unintentionally racist.

~Tim?

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

Are you paying attention? It's not a pissing contest. I'm clearly saying that no nation is in the right with regard to invading for the sake of "liberation".

The French and a lot of Western Europe might disagree with you. I seem to recall they currently exist because they were 'liberated'. Or do you think that it was wrong for the Allies to have landed and thrown the Nazis out?

We exist because we were liberated? It could have just as easily been the Soviet Union, granted it would be different, but we would still be 'liberated' and exist.

If it was the Soviet Union, you'd be speaking Russian.

So Poles, Czechs, former Eastern Germans speak Russian now too, thats a first.
Its like saying we speak English because of the US/UK/Canadians, which isnt true.

Russia wasn't very friendly to countries it invaded. Former PACT countries can agree to that.

I don't ever remember hearing about a war of liberation across the continent of Africa against the despots and tyrants that lurk there.

Who would waste time in a place with even less chance of improving itself?

That last sentence came across as being unintentionally racist.

~Tim?

If you look at Hyena's posting habits a bit, may not be that unintentional.

It also undermines the reason for going to Syria

They aren't likely to improve.

 xole wrote:
It also undermines the reason for going to Syria

Syria has people trying to overthrow their corrupt leader.

Whole lot of a difference there.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 xole wrote:
It also undermines the reason for going to Syria

Syria has people trying to overthrow their corrupt leader.

Whole lot of a difference there.

Some of the same ones who were involved in 9/11 and the London underground bombings and would do it again in a heartbeat, but then again so long as its against their corrupt leader who cares right?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 xole wrote:
It also undermines the reason for going to Syria

Syria has people trying to overthrow their corrupt leader.

Whole lot of a difference there.

Some of the same ones who were involved in 9/11 and the London underground bombings ad would do it again in a heartbeat, but then again so long as its against their corrupt leader who cares right?

Terrorists wouldn't have been as readily accepted into the uprising, if the West provided assistance earlier. Blame for that lies on the UN and England.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 xole wrote:
It also undermines the reason for going to Syria

Syria has people trying to overthrow their corrupt leader.

Whole lot of a difference there.

Some of the same ones who were involved in 9/11 and the London underground bombings ad would do it again in a heartbeat, but then again so long as its against their corrupt leader who cares right?

Terrorists wouldn't have been as readily accepted into the uprising, if the West provided assistance earlier. Blame for that lies on the UN and England.

Or on the Russians and Chinese for having blocked aid for so long?
Either way, the extremists are gaining ground against the FSA. Fighting against an idea is a lot thougher than just an army.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 xole wrote:
It also undermines the reason for going to Syria

Syria has people trying to overthrow their corrupt leader.

Whole lot of a difference there.

Some of the same ones who were involved in 9/11 and the London underground bombings ad would do it again in a heartbeat, but then again so long as its against their corrupt leader who cares right?

Terrorists wouldn't have been as readily accepted into the uprising, if the West provided assistance earlier. Blame for that lies on the UN and England.

Yeah, because they never infiltrated rebels and civilians before right?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 xole wrote:
It also undermines the reason for going to Syria

Syria has people trying to overthrow their corrupt leader.

Whole lot of a difference there.

Some of the same ones who were involved in 9/11 and the London underground bombings ad would do it again in a heartbeat, but then again so long as its against their corrupt leader who cares right?

Terrorists wouldn't have been as readily accepted into the uprising, if the West provided assistance earlier. Blame for that lies on the UN and England.

Or on the Russians and Chinese for having blocked aid for so long?

Both.

Yeah, because they never infiltrated rebels and civilians before right?

Would civilians give a feth about listening to them, when the West is helping to save their families? Their only choice is assistance from terrorists.

It doesn't really matter either way as long as Assad is outed. Ends justifies the means.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 xole wrote:
It also undermines the reason for going to Syria

Syria has people trying to overthrow their corrupt leader.

Whole lot of a difference there.

Some of the same ones who were involved in 9/11 and the London underground bombings ad would do it again in a heartbeat, but then again so long as its against their corrupt leader who cares right?

Terrorists wouldn't have been as readily accepted into the uprising, if the West provided assistance earlier. Blame for that lies on the UN and England.

Or on the Russians and Chinese for having blocked aid for so long?

Both.

Yeah, because they never infiltrated rebels and civilians before right?

Would civilians give a feth about listening to them, when the West is helping to save their families? Their only choice is assistance from terrorists.

Iraq and Afghanistan would like to have a word with you on the point of listening to terrorists. Even if they have a choice they might not pick us.

@Hyena

What is it with you and the constant England bashing?

Scotland has went along with many attrocities committed by the British Empire, hand in hand with England. Hell sometimes they sent Scottish people because they were worse.

We are not some put upon "victim" nation. If we get independence I fear attitudes like yours will multiply and turn the bitter Scottish stereotype into a reality.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 xole wrote:
It also undermines the reason for going to Syria

Syria has people trying to overthrow their corrupt leader.

Whole lot of a difference there.

Some of the same ones who were involved in 9/11 and the London underground bombings ad would do it again in a heartbeat, but then again so long as its against their corrupt leader who cares right?

Terrorists wouldn't have been as readily accepted into the uprising, if the West provided assistance earlier. Blame for that lies on the UN and England.

Or on the Russians and Chinese for having blocked aid for so long?

Both.

Yeah, because they never infiltrated rebels and civilians before right?

Would civilians give a feth about listening to them, when the West is helping to save their families? Their only choice is assistance from terrorists.

Iraq and Afghanistan would like to have a word with you on the point of listening to terrorists.

Iraq and Afghanistan is another example of why lack of assistance by the majority of the EU (otherwise known as the useless majority) is why it failed.

What is it with you and the constant England bashing?

Scotland has went along with many attrocities committed by the British Empire, hand in hand with England. Hell sometimes they sent Scottish people because they were worse.

We are not some put upon "victim" nation. If we get independence I fear attitudes like yours will multiply and turn the bitter Scottish stereotype into a reality.

Might be because of the Imperialism that is causing it to oppress a nation.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 xole wrote:
It also undermines the reason for going to Syria

Syria has people trying to overthrow their corrupt leader.

Whole lot of a difference there.

Some of the same ones who were involved in 9/11 and the London underground bombings ad would do it again in a heartbeat, but then again so long as its against their corrupt leader who cares right?

Terrorists wouldn't have been as readily accepted into the uprising, if the West provided assistance earlier. Blame for that lies on the UN and England.

Or on the Russians and Chinese for having blocked aid for so long?

Both.

Yeah, because they never infiltrated rebels and civilians before right?

Would civilians give a feth about listening to them, when the West is helping to save their families? Their only choice is assistance from terrorists.

Iraq and Afghanistan would like to have a word with you on the point of listening to terrorists.

Iraq and Afghanistan is another example of why lack of assistance by the majority of the EU (otherwise known as the useless majority) is why it failed.

So the lack of our ground troops being killed against terrorists was lacking in assistance? Should more have died to prove the point? What was our lack of assistance, what could we have done so that the population picked us? We were already there on the ground trying to improve their lives and trying to keep the terrorists from trying to blow everyone that didnt bow to their every wish to kingdom come.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 xole wrote:
It also undermines the reason for going to Syria

Syria has people trying to overthrow their corrupt leader.

Whole lot of a difference there.

Some of the same ones who were involved in 9/11 and the London underground bombings ad would do it again in a heartbeat, but then again so long as its against their corrupt leader who cares right?

Terrorists wouldn't have been as readily accepted into the uprising, if the West provided assistance earlier. Blame for that lies on the UN and England.

Or on the Russians and Chinese for having blocked aid for so long?

Both.

Yeah, because they never infiltrated rebels and civilians before right?

Would civilians give a feth about listening to them, when the West is helping to save their families? Their only choice is assistance from terrorists.

Iraq and Afghanistan would like to have a word with you on the point of listening to terrorists.

Iraq and Afghanistan is another example of why lack of assistance by the majority of the EU (otherwise known as the useless majority) is why it failed.

So the lack of our ground troops being killed against terrorists was lacking in assistance? Should more have died to prove the point? What was our lack of assistance, what could we have done that the population picked us? We were already there on the ground trying to improve their lives and trying to keep the terrorists from trying to blow everyone that didnt bow to their every wish to kingdom come.

Build a nation to change minds or leave people to die and become vengeful. If more countries were in building FULL infrastructures, people would have thought differently.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 xole wrote:
It also undermines the reason for going to Syria

Syria has people trying to overthrow their corrupt leader.

Whole lot of a difference there.

Some of the same ones who were involved in 9/11 and the London underground bombings ad would do it again in a heartbeat, but then again so long as its against their corrupt leader who cares right?

Terrorists wouldn't have been as readily accepted into the uprising, if the West provided assistance earlier. Blame for that lies on the UN and England.

Or on the Russians and Chinese for having blocked aid for so long?

Both.

Yeah, because they never infiltrated rebels and civilians before right?

Would civilians give a feth about listening to them, when the West is helping to save their families? Their only choice is assistance from terrorists.

Iraq and Afghanistan would like to have a word with you on the point of listening to terrorists.

Iraq and Afghanistan is another example of why lack of assistance by the majority of the EU (otherwise known as the useless majority) is why it failed.

So the lack of our ground troops being killed against terrorists was lacking in assistance? Should more have died to prove the point? What was our lack of assistance, what could we have done that the population picked us? We were already there on the ground trying to improve their lives and trying to keep the terrorists from trying to blow everyone that didnt bow to their every wish to kingdom come.

Build a nation to change minds or leave people to die and become vengeful. If more countries were in building FULL infrastructures, people would have thought differently.

I hope you like being in poverty, cause the amount of money we'd need for rebuilding FULL infrastructures. Oh wait, that's a disease right? Guess we can't do that.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 xole wrote:
It also undermines the reason for going to Syria

Syria has people trying to overthrow their corrupt leader.

Whole lot of a difference there.

Some of the same ones who were involved in 9/11 and the London underground bombings ad would do it again in a heartbeat, but then again so long as its against their corrupt leader who cares right?

Terrorists wouldn't have been as readily accepted into the uprising, if the West provided assistance earlier. Blame for that lies on the UN and England.

Or on the Russians and Chinese for having blocked aid for so long?

Both.

Yeah, because they never infiltrated rebels and civilians before right?

Would civilians give a feth about listening to them, when the West is helping to save their families? Their only choice is assistance from terrorists.

Iraq and Afghanistan would like to have a word with you on the point of listening to terrorists.

Iraq and Afghanistan is another example of why lack of assistance by the majority of the EU (otherwise known as the useless majority) is why it failed.

So the lack of our ground troops being killed against terrorists was lacking in assistance? Should more have died to prove the point? What was our lack of assistance, what could we have done that the population picked us? We were already there on the ground trying to improve their lives and trying to keep the terrorists from trying to blow everyone that didnt bow to their every wish to kingdom come.

Build a nation to change minds or leave people to die and become vengeful. If more countries were in building FULL infrastructures, people would have thought differently.

We tried that, but as you might have noticed they werent so willing to accept that. The countries already in did those things. How many countries do you have to pile in to achieve such a thing, this is a bar thats constantly being hightened. You can just keep saying, no wasnt enough, nope again not enough. What would be enough? Shouldnt this be the exact reason you should be against intervention? Even less countries are willing to show up this time.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 xole wrote:
It also undermines the reason for going to Syria

Syria has people trying to overthrow their corrupt leader.

Whole lot of a difference there.

Some of the same ones who were involved in 9/11 and the London underground bombings ad would do it again in a heartbeat, but then again so long as its against their corrupt leader who cares right?

Terrorists wouldn't have been as readily accepted into the uprising, if the West provided assistance earlier. Blame for that lies on the UN and England.

Or on the Russians and Chinese for having blocked aid for so long?

Both.

Yeah, because they never infiltrated rebels and civilians before right?

Would civilians give a feth about listening to them, when the West is helping to save their families? Their only choice is assistance from terrorists.

Iraq and Afghanistan would like to have a word with you on the point of listening to terrorists.

Iraq and Afghanistan is another example of why lack of assistance by the majority of the EU (otherwise known as the useless majority) is why it failed.

So the lack of our ground troops being killed against terrorists was lacking in assistance? Should more have died to prove the point? What was our lack of assistance, what could we have done that the population picked us? We were already there on the ground trying to improve their lives and trying to keep the terrorists from trying to blow everyone that didnt bow to their every wish to kingdom come.

Build a nation to change minds or leave people to die and become vengeful. If more countries were in building FULL infrastructures, people would have thought differently.

We tried that, but as you might have noticed they werent so willing to accept that. The countries already in did those things. How many countries do you have to pile in to achieve such a thing, this is a bar thats constantly being hightened. You can just keep saying, no wasnt enough, nope again not enough. What would be enough? Shouldnt this be the exact reason you should be against intervention? Even less countries are willing to show up this time.

If every nation either put boots on the ground or donated a substantial sum instead, more progress should logically be able to happen. But we ended up with quite a few UN countries who did considerably jack-all to assist. Which is a great argument for a reduction on their say on world affairs. If you don't get involved, you don't get a say.

If people are unwilling to compromise like that, then do the simple thing and glass the warzone. Equal, fair and cheap.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
If every nation either put boots on the ground or donated a substantial sum instead, more progress should logically be able to happen. But we ended up with quite a few UN countries who did considerably jack-all to assist. Which is a great argument for a reduction on their say on world affairs. If you don't get involved, you don't get a say.

If people are unwilling to compromise like that, then do the simple thing and glass the warzone. Equal, fair and cheap.

So what happened in Iraq? The had enough oil to make a substantial amount of money. We even had the US surge of troops to help there. Your argument hold no value, since we cant logically determine the amount of forces or money needed. Dont you think planners have spend the last 10 years brainstorming on this issue? Well I guess they should have just hired you. Have every Afghani get a million dollars and a soldier as a bodyguard, problem solved?

Jesus... this thread has taken a weird turn...

 whembly wrote:
Jesus... this thread has taken a weird turn...

You should go to some of the places I've been if you think this is weird. Then again, given this forum's collection of posters...

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Jesus... this thread has taken a weird turn...

You should go to some of the places I've been if you think this is weird.

What does that even mean?