This might be a difficult question...  and I guess I'm surprised that there is no-one before me..

(or not)

How do people feel about our soldiers in Afghanistan?
Should they be there?
Perhaps its worthy of a Poll.

I have my views,  and  there seems to be no coverage at all at the moment...  mind you a thread could be out there.. my somewhat narrow search found nothing. :o :-?

I should say... I guess... that they need to stay...!!

My first Poll.. so forgiveness pls.  :)

We're not colonists, sista. We have a small, symbolic defence force.

Our expertise is better spent in aid. Of course the Karzai government would sqander it - which makes you wonder why we're propping up a dead horse in the first place - with real blood.

We'd do better befriending moderate forces in the Taliban - which is exactly what we should have done in our last pointless exercise, Vietnam. If we'd bothered with the Khmer Rouge, we could have saved millions.

I don't agree karnal.

"Moderate"  Taliban  ???
Like the latest cowardly killer ,??  ...of three of our soldiers?

Say ? do you know some moderate taliban members then ..??.. huh?

DO TELL.!!! Please.

Jeez you talk Krap Karnal.   
That's your new name  ...krap karnal.

You drag in Khmer?  what ?  so your point??
....  is irrelevant.! But thanks for the vote.!

It doesnt matter anymore imo. We have provoked the afghanis now . .. . .

SOB

I say leave as soon as possible, like yesterday.

There is no point us being there. They didn't want us there in the first place and they don't want us there now.  They don't see us as friends.

Like someone else said, we can stay for another two years or another 100 years, the gangsters will be back in force within weeks of our withdrawal.

The government are with the Taliban and war lords because they know that when the coalition of the killing pull out, their necks are on the line.

These countries are not ready to be westernised yet, and they probably never will be.

The west should mind its own business and take care of its own before invading other nations for whatever reason.

Has any good come from any of the American invasions in the Middle East?

Bring our soldiers home NOW.  Not next year, or in 2014, bring them home NOW.     :(

I can' t Beleive most respondants to this Poll, want there to continue to be Australian deaths in Afghanistan.

Can we have another option, please?
Kill 'em all, then leave.

warrigal wrote on Sep 1^st, 2012 at 10:06am:

I can' t Beleive most respondants to this Poll, want there to continue to be Australian deaths in Afghanistan.

My computer must be broken....I didn't see anything in the poll choices about 'continue to be deaths'....

Send the Afghans and Iraqis and Iranians and Pakis back to Afghanistan et al and bring the Australians back to Australia.

Emma wrote on Sep 1^st, 2012 at 1:37am:

I don't agree karnal. "Moderate"  Taliban  ??? Like the latest cowardly killer ,??  ...of three of our soldiers? Say ? do you know some moderate taliban members then ..??.. huh? DO TELL.!!! Please. Jeez you talk Krap Karnal.    That's your new name  ...krap karnal. You drag in Khmer?  what ?  so your point?? ....  is irrelevant.! But thanks for the vote.!

Sista, the soldiers you mention were killed by our allies in the Afghan forces, not the Taliban. This is how amorphous the situation is in Afghanistan.

Leaders and warlords change sides like the wind. The Taliban is not a centralised organisation. Power in Afghanistan is regional - well, tribal. There are a huge number of ethnic groups for a country of twenty odd million people.

Like the rest of the country, the Taliban is factionalised and splintered. For a tribal country, Afghans are radically individualistic people. A small number of Taliban leaders are part of a Western educated political elite that has been cultivated by Europe and Amerika in the interest of Afghanistan's resources.

George W Bush, for example, formed a relationship with the Taliban trade minister when he was still Texan governor. Karzai lived and worked in Amerika during the  years of Taliban rule. China is now building a national highway linking Kabul with the south.

The world wants what Afghanistan has - what Bush was referring to when he talked about Amerika's addiction to fossil fuels. There are moderate leaders in the Taliban who are now meeting with the US State Department to discuss the transition in 2014.

Whether they or the extremists prevail will determine the fate of Afghanistan. The Karzai government and the current parliament are in their last days. 

Soren wrote on Sep 1^st, 2012 at 1:03pm:

Can we have another option, please? Kill 'em all, then leave.

That's what the coalition of the killing have been trying to do for ten years.

They'll be there forever.

They suck at it, the best they can do is raid a few peasant dwellings in the dead of night and kill little kiddies and their mummy's.

It is pretty ironic that the yank guy went out and killed a bunch of ppl a few weeks ago and now an afghani has gone off the rails. Must be a bit of a headbugger over there.

SOB

I can't believe that we are wasting good aussie blood on that crap hole. I feel sorry for the good afghani people that will suffer when the taliban get back in though. Get them home.

The duty statement of a soldier is simple: it reads....

Shoot and be shot at.

That salient point is spelled out before a person signs on as a soldier.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Sep 1^st, 2012 at 1:27pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 1st, 2012 at 1:03pm: Can we have another option, please? Kill 'em all, then leave. That's what the coalition of the killing have been trying to do for ten years. They'll be there forever. They suck at it, the best they can do is raid a few peasant dwellings in the dead of night and kill little kiddies and their mummy's.

My point exactly.

The West has no appetite for actually killing its enemies. It wants to act like some smacking charity. But war is about killing 'em until they know they are defeated. That requires some serious, no holds bared demolition.

Cut off their balls and their hearts and minds will follow.  But with a feminised world, it's not like that. It's all about the enemies smacking grievances. 
War is about killing, not counselling. If you want to counsel them, don's start a war. If you start a war, forget counselling.

Rubbish.

The Helicopter video makes THAT  very clear.

Or perhaps you are suggesting they only have the ticker to kill civilians.?? I'm talking the yanks here.

And good grief,  it's all the fault of feminists.! ! !

I don't think our soldiers in Afghanistan would agree with you at all...they obviously consider what they are doing there to be the right and necessary thing to do.

They are all volunteers...you know??  they went to kill or be killed....  that is what war is about, isn't it?

Now, no-one in their right minds would  willingly engage in warfare in Afghanistan.
Its been the death of many armies..... the people are indomitable, and will fight any they consider their foe.
But the fact remains ..we are there...courtesy of Howard and Bush.

They have put us, and  the West in general, in a situation that cannot be walked away from.
Well...

...not without accepting defeat. 
The Exit Plan is a means of leaving, without appearing to run.

The future is uncertain. :)

The western armies in Afghanistan don't have much support from the Afghan's. Is it because they are mostly white and christian??? I think so. The same thing happened in Vietnam. The south Vietnamese stood around while the Americans did all the fighting. The Vietnamese civilians either helped the communists or couldn't give a toss. When it came ready for the south Vietnamese to fight alone they weren't ready and got their butts kicked. That same thing will happen here. With commitment from the Afghan's that don't follow the homicidal Taliban we could win easy. But otherwise it's just another Vietnam. I hate seeing our soldiers die for no reason.

Soren wrote on Sep 1^st, 2012 at 7:26pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Sep 1st, 2012 at 1:27pm: Soren wrote on Sep 1st, 2012 at 1:03pm: Can we have another option, please? Kill 'em all, then leave. That's what the coalition of the killing have been trying to do for ten years. They'll be there forever. They suck at it, the best they can do is raid a few peasant dwellings in the dead of night and kill little kiddies and their mummy's. My point exactly. The West has no appetite for actually killing its enemies. It wants to act like some smacking charity.

Enemies? But my frien - aren't we there to help the Afghani peoples? Pashtun, Dari, Hazara, all?

Please explains.

Big Dave wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2012 at 12:57pm:

The same thing happened in Vietnam. The south Vietnamese stood around while the Americans did all the fighting. The Vietnamese civilians either helped the communists or couldn't give a toss.

And there you have the rules of the game of insurgencies: ragtag guerrilla outfits fighting external forces within local populations.

We could equally use the example of Balkan partisans during WWII. If the Third Reich wasn't defeated by "conventional" armies, it would have been death of a thousand cuts by partisan forces, despite policies like killing 50 civilians for every German taken or killed.

You can't hold insurgencies off indefinitely. In the long run, they defeat empires each and every time. Mao knew exactly what he was talking about on guerrilla warfare. When you've got the local population on side, the weak overcome the strong each and every time.

Old duckies like the Kaiser above have slept through the entire 20th century.

What kind of idiot would go and fight in another country just because he was told to? I cant feel sorry for the dead soldiers that were there terrorizing and murdering the Afghan locals. If you want to be a soldier expect to get hurt or worse, but the media should stop trying to make these weak minded easily lead morons into heroes,bring them home and stop sending these stupid little boys into harms way for no good reason.

Quote:

bigrsoul wrote What kind of idiot would go and fight in another country just because he was told to? I cant feel sorry for the dead soldiers that were there terrorizing and murdering the Afghan locals. If you want to be a soldier expect to get hurt or worse, but the media should stop trying to make these weak minded easily lead morons into heroes,bring them home and stop sending these stupid little boys into harms way for no good reason.

The physical demands required of soldiers makes them far from 'weak minded.' There's a great deal of will power and determination involved to keep pushing yourself physically.

Even if they chose to go, I still don't see how that's weak minded or moronic.
Moreover, how can it be weak minded if you make a conscious decision to participate in the defence force?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2012 at 4:00pm:

Quote: bigrsoul wrote What kind of idiot would go and fight in another country just because he was told to? I cant feel sorry for the dead soldiers that were there terrorizing and murdering the Afghan locals. If you want to be a soldier expect to get hurt or worse, but the media should stop trying to make these weak minded easily lead morons into heroes,bring them home and stop sending these stupid little boys into harms way for no good reason. The physical demands required of soldiers makes them far from 'weak minded.' There's a great deal of will power and determination involved to keep pushing yourself physically.

Thats funny he said weak minded not weak bodied.

SOB

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2012 at 4:04pm:

Even if they chose to go, I still don't see how that's weak minded or moronic. Moreover, how can it be weak minded if you make a conscious decision to participate in the defence force?

Well:

a) doesnt pay well
b) risks are great

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2012 at 5:03pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 4:00pm: Quote: bigrsoul wrote What kind of idiot would go and fight in another country just because he was told to? I cant feel sorry for the dead soldiers that were there terrorizing and murdering the Afghan locals. If you want to be a soldier expect to get hurt or worse, but the media should stop trying to make these weak minded easily lead morons into heroes,bring them home and stop sending these stupid little boys into harms way for no good reason. The physical demands required of soldiers makes them far from 'weak minded.' There's a great deal of will power and determination involved to keep pushing yourself physically. Thats funny he said weak minded not weak bodied. SOB

And, as I said, it takes a strong mind to build a strong body.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2012 at 5:04pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 4:04pm: Even if they chose to go, I still don't see how that's weak minded or moronic. Moreover, how can it be weak minded if you make a conscious decision to participate in the defence force? Well: a) doesnt pay well b) risks are great SOB

a. It's not all about money.
b. The courageous like risks.

Kids like risks. Fighting a war is all about minimising risks. The job of the courageous is to stop kids from being heroes.

It takes a unique dill to sell the idea that war is about the expression of courage. Yes, my friends, it takes a politician.

I wonder how many do-gooders will be whinging when the Taliban get in. There'll be executions of all types, women will go back to having the rights of a donkey etc etc etc. The muslims will probably get up and start shouting why something isn't getting done about the incoming massacres. America and it's allies won't come back after they leave either.

Bigrsoul wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2012 at 3:54pm:

What kind of idiot would go and fight in another country just because he was told to?

Do you think soldiers vote on the issue? You need to read over an enlistment form VEWWY VEWWY carefully. It mentions the fact that when you sign up you agree to take orders and serve your country. That includes being sent to foreign lands.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2012 at 5:06pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:04pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 4:04pm: Even if they chose to go, I still don't see how that's weak minded or moronic. Moreover, how can it be weak minded if you make a conscious decision to participate in the defence force? Well: a) doesnt pay well b) risks are great SOB a. It's not all about money. b. The courageous like risks.

How does it make ppl courageous to put themselves in harms way for little pay for no reason? Seriously we arent @ war or anything - we dont need defending. the only reason someone would join up nowadays to go overseas and fight in someone elses war is because they want to kill ppl. Not because they are "brave".

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 6:08am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:06pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:04pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 4:04pm: Even if they chose to go, I still don't see how that's weak minded or moronic. Moreover, how can it be weak minded if you make a conscious decision to participate in the defence force? Well: a) doesnt pay well b) risks are great SOB a. It's not all about money. b. The courageous like risks. How does it make ppl courageous to put themselves in harms way for little pay for no reason? Seriously we arent @ war or anything - we dont need defending. the only reason someone would join up nowadays to go overseas and fight in someone elses war is because they want to kill ppl. Not because they are "brave". SOB

Some join as a last resort spot.

Some of the youth in my area couldn't get work after leaving school so they joined the defence force as a means to an end sort of. They are young, naive and desperate to start earning money and to lose the stigma attached to the unemployed.

When they joined, Afghanistan didn't even enter their heads, they didn't really think they would be sent to fight a war on terror.

I feel very sorry for those kids, they were kids in my book. They had no hate for Arabs or anyone else for that matter. One day they are surfing, next day they are learning to kill. All that for a job, any old job, but they had to resort to that.

They either come back with their brain screwed or in a box, just for a job.

You must yourselves realize the power of your country, and feed your eyes upon her from day to day, till love of her fills your hearts; and then, when all her greatness shall break upon you, you must reflect that it was by courage, sense of duty, and a keen feeling of honour in action that men were enabled to win all this, and that no personal failure in an enterprise could make them consent to deprive their country of their valour, but they laid it at her feet as the most glorious contribution that they could offer.

For this offering of their lives made in common by them all they each of them individually received that renown which never grows old, and for a sepulchre, not so much that in which their bones have been deposited, but that noblest of shrines wherein their glory is laid up to be eternally remembered upon every occasion on which deed or story shall call for its commemoration. For heroes have the whole earth for their tomb; and in lands far from their own, where the column with its epitaph declares it, there is enshrined in every breast a record unwritten with no tablet to preserve it, except that of the heart.

These take as your model and, judging happiness to be the fruit of freedom and freedom of valour, never decline the dangers of war. For it is not the miserable that would most justly be unsparing of their lives; these have nothing to hope for: it is rather they to whom continued life may bring reverses as yet unknown, and to whom a fall, if it came, would be most tremendous in its consequences. And surely, to a man of spirit, the degradation of cowardice must be immeasurably more grievous than the unfelt death which strikes him in the midst of his strength and patriotism!

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 6:08am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:06pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:04pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 4:04pm: Even if they chose to go, I still don't see how that's weak minded or moronic. Moreover, how can it be weak minded if you make a conscious decision to participate in the defence force? Well: a) doesnt pay well b) risks are great SOB a. It's not all about money. b. The courageous like risks. How does it make ppl courageous to put themselves in harms way for little pay for no reason? Seriously we arent @ war or anything - we dont need defending. the only reason someone would join up nowadays to go overseas and fight in someone elses war is because they want to kill ppl. Not because they are "brave". SOB

Why do people climb everest, or journey to the north pole?  Theres little to be gained, and everything to lose, so it doesn't make logical sense - unless you realise that the thirst for adventure is what drives men to greatness.

Soren wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 10:50am:

You must yourselves realize the power of your country, and feed your eyes upon her from day to day, till love of her fills your hearts; and then, when all her greatness shall break upon you, you must reflect that it was by courage, sense of duty, and a keen feeling of honour in action that men were enabled to win all this, and that no personal failure in an enterprise could make them consent to deprive their country of their valour, but they laid it at her feet as the most glorious contribution that they could offer. For this offering of their lives made in common by them all they each of them individually received that renown which never grows old, and for a sepulchre, not so much that in which their bones have been deposited, but that noblest of shrines wherein their glory is laid up to be eternally remembered upon every occasion on which deed or story shall call for its commemoration. For heroes have the whole earth for their tomb; and in lands far from their own, where the column with its epitaph declares it, there is enshrined in every breast a record unwritten with no tablet to preserve it, except that of the heart. These take as your model and, judging happiness to be the fruit of freedom and freedom of valour, never decline the dangers of war. For it is not the miserable that would most justly be unsparing of their lives; these have nothing to hope for: it is rather they to whom continued life may bring reverses as yet unknown, and to whom a fall, if it came, would be most tremendous in its consequences. And surely, to a man of spirit, the degradation of cowardice must be immeasurably more grievous than the unfelt death which strikes him in the midst of his strength and patriotism!

Marvellous stuff, old chap. Suharto? Mahatir? Lee Quan Yew?

If anyone here has served in the army you would know that every decision you take is with the least risk involved.

There is enough risk in everything you do without you add more to it!

You want to add risk - you are likely to be killed.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 11:31am:

If anyone here has served in the army you would know that every decision you take is with the least risk involved. There is enough risk in everything you do without you add more to it! You want to add risk - you are likely to be killed.

There are Israelis fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq?
I thought they just stayed at home and let everyone else do the fighting for them while shooting rock throwing children.

Afghanistan and Iraq is not related to us.

However be assured we will be happy to attack Iran from the air.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 11:47am:

Afghanistan and Iraq is not related to us. However be assured we will be happy to attack Iran from the air.

Yes they are, they are Semitic and statistically have just as many of 'gods chosen people' in their population as Israel does.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 11:47am:

Afghanistan and Iraq is not related to us. However be assured we will be happy to attack Iran from the air.

You should be back there supporting your country when that happens

adelcrow wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 11:51am:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 11:47am: Afghanistan and Iraq is not related to us. However be assured we will be happy to attack Iran from the air. You should be back there supporting your country when that happens

I am a Reservist now until I am 45 years old.
I will go for 2 weeks of training on my return - please be assured I will be on call for IDF if it is ever required and again the Arab aggressors want another humiliation.

One day on my return next year I promise to post up the photo of my uncles in the Sinai in the 6 day war with a big Israeli flag deep into Egypt!!
We are brave and courageous people.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 11:56am:

adelcrow wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 11:51am: Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 11:47am: Afghanistan and Iraq is not related to us. However be assured we will be happy to attack Iran from the air. You should be back there supporting your country when that happens I am a Reservist now until I am 45 years old. I will go for 2 weeks of training on my return - please be assured I will be on call for IDF if it is ever required and again the Arab aggressors want another humiliation. One day on my return next year I promise to post up the photo of my uncles in the Sinai in the 6 day war with a big Israeli flag deep into Egypt!! We are brave and courageous people.

Just don't cry to us again when you get yourselves holocausted.

to you?

HA

You are a coward. Someone who would be frightened to death if he spend 1 single day in what we do.

Just a internet warrior as they say in the USA.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 6:08am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:06pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:04pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 4:04pm: Even if they chose to go, I still don't see how that's weak minded or moronic. Moreover, how can it be weak minded if you make a conscious decision to participate in the defence force? Well: a) doesnt pay well b) risks are great SOB a. It's not all about money. b. The courageous like risks. How does it make ppl courageous to put themselves in harms way for little pay for no reason? Seriously we arent @ war or anything - we dont need defending. the only reason someone would join up nowadays to go overseas and fight in someone elses war is because they want to kill ppl. Not because they are "brave". SOB

You don't understand things like self-determination, courage, honour, risk-taking, striving for betterment, self-cultivation, serving the country, making a difference etc.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 12:00pm:

to you? HA You are a coward. Someone who would be frightened to death if he spend 1 single day in what we do. Just a internet warrior as they say in the USA.

You would be frightened to death if the veil of ignorance dropped from around your head and you saw the reality of it all.

Just a terrorist as they say in the dictionary.

... wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 11:21am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 6:08am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:06pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:04pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 4:04pm: Even if they chose to go, I still don't see how that's weak minded or moronic. Moreover, how can it be weak minded if you make a conscious decision to participate in the defence force? Well: a) doesnt pay well b) risks are great SOB a. It's not all about money. b. The courageous like risks. How does it make ppl courageous to put themselves in harms way for little pay for no reason? Seriously we arent @ war or anything - we dont need defending. the only reason someone would join up nowadays to go overseas and fight in someone elses war is because they want to kill ppl. Not because they are "brave". SOB Why do people climb everest, or journey to the north pole?  Theres little to be gained, and everything to lose, so it doesn't make logical sense - unless you realise that the thirst for adventure is what drives men to greatness.

That doesnt make them heroes or brave

SOB

More Afghani civilians killed by the coalition of the killing. Don't complain when the Afghani soldiers retaliate.

It's too easy to kill unarmed villagers and call them insurgents.

Karzai's pissed off, now the yanks have to throw more money at him.

If we're not training any more, we may as well bring our soldiers home.
..................................................................

'Civilian' Afghan men killed in manhunt

Sergeant Hek Matullah escaped from the patrol base straight after the killings and he's suspected to have been aided by the Taliban.

After an extensive search Australian troops aided by Afghan forces have detained a suspected insurgent they say helped with the escape.

But the raid has come at a cost. Two Afghan men were killed by Australian troops.

The ADF says all the proper rules of engagement were followed but Afghanistan's president Hamid Karzai is furious.

Local reports say those killed were a 70 year old Imam and his son. It's also been reported that the Australian troops detained a number of locals, including a woman, during the operation.

President Karzai says the Australian forces acted unilaterally and he wants a full inquiry into the situation.

The latest incidents have highlighted the problems "green on blue" killings are causing for western forces in Afghanistan. At least 45 Western soldiers have died at the hands of Afghan allies this year.

Now ISAF has suspended the training of new recruits to the Afghan local police.

more:

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3581333.htm

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 11:31am:

If anyone here has served in the army you would know that every decision you take is with the least risk involved. There is enough risk in everything you do without you add more to it! You want to add risk - you are likely to be killed.

yup.that is why it is stupid to join the army in peacetime and go fight someone elses war.

SOB

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 12:02pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 6:08am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:06pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:04pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 4:04pm: Even if they chose to go, I still don't see how that's weak minded or moronic. Moreover, how can it be weak minded if you make a conscious decision to participate in the defence force? Well: a) doesnt pay well b) risks are great SOB a. It's not all about money. b. The courageous like risks. How does it make ppl courageous to put themselves in harms way for little pay for no reason? Seriously we arent @ war or anything - we dont need defending. the only reason someone would join up nowadays to go overseas and fight in someone elses war is because they want to kill ppl. Not because they are "brave". SOB You don't understand things like self-determination, courage, honour, risk-taking, striving for betterment, self-cultivation, serving the country, making a difference etc.

it more stupid than brave and you arent serving this country. it has nothing to do with honour.

you can strive for betterment without going off and killing ppl.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 12:05pm:

... wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 11:21am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 6:08am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:06pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:04pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 4:04pm: Even if they chose to go, I still don't see how that's weak minded or moronic. Moreover, how can it be weak minded if you make a conscious decision to participate in the defence force? Well: a) doesnt pay well b) risks are great SOB a. It's not all about money. b. The courageous like risks. How does it make ppl courageous to put themselves in harms way for little pay for no reason? Seriously we arent @ war or anything - we dont need defending. the only reason someone would join up nowadays to go overseas and fight in someone elses war is because they want to kill ppl. Not because they are "brave". SOB Why do people climb everest, or journey to the north pole?  Theres little to be gained, and everything to lose, so it doesn't make logical sense - unless you realise that the thirst for adventure is what drives men to greatness. That doesnt make them heroes or brave SOB

It doesn't?  Then what does?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 12:08pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:02pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 6:08am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:06pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:04pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 4:04pm: Even if they chose to go, I still don't see how that's weak minded or moronic. Moreover, how can it be weak minded if you make a conscious decision to participate in the defence force? Well: a) doesnt pay well b) risks are great SOB a. It's not all about money. b. The courageous like risks. How does it make ppl courageous to put themselves in harms way for little pay for no reason? Seriously we arent @ war or anything - we dont need defending. the only reason someone would join up nowadays to go overseas and fight in someone elses war is because they want to kill ppl. Not because they are "brave". SOB You don't understand things like self-determination, courage, honour, risk-taking, striving for betterment, self-cultivation, serving the country, making a difference etc. it more stupid than brave and you arent serving this country. it has nothing to do with honour. you can strive for betterment without going off and killing ppl. SOB

See, the thing is, you're unable to look outside your own perspective of the world. You filter everything through your own lens. Here's a hint: The more perspectives you understand, the more you will understand the world and the people in it.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 12:21pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:08pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:02pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 6:08am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:06pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:04pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 4:04pm: Even if they chose to go, I still don't see how that's weak minded or moronic. Moreover, how can it be weak minded if you make a conscious decision to participate in the defence force? Well: a) doesnt pay well b) risks are great SOB a. It's not all about money. b. The courageous like risks. How does it make ppl courageous to put themselves in harms way for little pay for no reason? Seriously we arent @ war or anything - we dont need defending. the only reason someone would join up nowadays to go overseas and fight in someone elses war is because they want to kill ppl. Not because they are "brave". SOB You don't understand things like self-determination, courage, honour, risk-taking, striving for betterment, self-cultivation, serving the country, making a difference etc. it more stupid than brave and you arent serving this country. it has nothing to do with honour. you can strive for betterment without going off and killing ppl. SOB See, the thing is, you're unable to look outside your own perspective of the world. You filter everything through your own lens. Here's a hint: The more perspectives you understand, the more you will understand the world and the people in it.

How much perspective do people like you get from up your own asses?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 12:06pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 11:31am: If anyone here has served in the army you would know that every decision you take is with the least risk involved. There is enough risk in everything you do without you add more to it! You want to add risk - you are likely to be killed. yup.that is why it is stupid to join the army in peacetime and go fight someone elses war. SOB

Armies do not need cowards like you anyway

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 12:23pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:06pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 11:31am: If anyone here has served in the army you would know that every decision you take is with the least risk involved. There is enough risk in everything you do without you add more to it! You want to add risk - you are likely to be killed. yup.that is why it is stupid to join the army in peacetime and go fight someone elses war. SOB Armies do not need cowards like you anyway

The Israeli army is in Afghanistan and Iraq?
I dont think so..

bobbythefap1 wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 12:23pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:21pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:08pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:02pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 6:08am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:06pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:04pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 4:04pm: Even if they chose to go, I still don't see how that's weak minded or moronic. Moreover, how can it be weak minded if you make a conscious decision to participate in the defence force? Well: a) doesnt pay well b) risks are great SOB a. It's not all about money. b. The courageous like risks. How does it make ppl courageous to put themselves in harms way for little pay for no reason? Seriously we arent @ war or anything - we dont need defending. the only reason someone would join up nowadays to go overseas and fight in someone elses war is because they want to kill ppl. Not because they are "brave". SOB You don't understand things like self-determination, courage, honour, risk-taking, striving for betterment, self-cultivation, serving the country, making a difference etc. it more stupid than brave and you arent serving this country. it has nothing to do with honour. you can strive for betterment without going off and killing ppl. SOB See, the thing is, you're unable to look outside your own perspective of the world. You filter everything through your own lens. Here's a hint: The more perspectives you understand, the more you will understand the world and the people in it. How much perspective do people like you get from up your own asses?

Yo, fully sic bro!
You so sic bro!

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 12:23pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:06pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 11:31am: If anyone here has served in the army you would know that every decision you take is with the least risk involved. There is enough risk in everything you do without you add more to it! You want to add risk - you are likely to be killed. yup.that is why it is stupid to join the army in peacetime and go fight someone elses war. SOB Armies do not need cowards like you anyway

What sort of cowards do they need?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 12:34pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:23pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:21pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:08pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:02pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 6:08am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:06pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:04pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 4:04pm: Even if they chose to go, I still don't see how that's weak minded or moronic. Moreover, how can it be weak minded if you make a conscious decision to participate in the defence force? Well: a) doesnt pay well b) risks are great SOB a. It's not all about money. b. The courageous like risks. How does it make ppl courageous to put themselves in harms way for little pay for no reason? Seriously we arent @ war or anything - we dont need defending. the only reason someone would join up nowadays to go overseas and fight in someone elses war is because they want to kill ppl. Not because they are "brave". SOB You don't understand things like self-determination, courage, honour, risk-taking, striving for betterment, self-cultivation, serving the country, making a difference etc. it more stupid than brave and you arent serving this country. it has nothing to do with honour. you can strive for betterment without going off and killing ppl. SOB See, the thing is, you're unable to look outside your own perspective of the world. You filter everything through your own lens. Here's a hint: The more perspectives you understand, the more you will understand the world and the people in it. How much perspective do people like you get from up your own asses? Yo, fully sic bro! You so sic bro!

Blame the communists.

Marxists.  Not communists - marxists.

... wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 12:44pm:

Marxists.  Not communists - marxists.

The Marx brothers were capitalist Jews not Communists  :D

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 12:02pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 6:08am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:06pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:04pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 4:04pm: Even if they chose to go, I still don't see how that's weak minded or moronic. Moreover, how can it be weak minded if you make a conscious decision to participate in the defence force? Well: a) doesnt pay well b) risks are great SOB a. It's not all about money. b. The courageous like risks. How does it make ppl courageous to put themselves in harms way for little pay for no reason? Seriously we arent @ war or anything - we dont need defending. the only reason someone would join up nowadays to go overseas and fight in someone elses war is because they want to kill ppl. Not because they are "brave". SOB You don't understand things like self-determination, courage, honour, risk-taking, striving for betterment, self-cultivation, serving the country, making a difference etc.

Er, Mistie, what exactly do you do to serve the country?

Never you mind. It's not about me anyway.

That's right. It's all about how SOB doesn't understand things like self-determination, courage, honour, risk-taking, striving for betterment, self-cultivation, serving the country, making a difference etc.

The topic is Afghanistan and the war. I think my comments were on topic.

But you haven't faught in a war, have you?

adelcrow wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 12:27pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:23pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:06pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 11:31am: If anyone here has served in the army you would know that every decision you take is with the least risk involved. There is enough risk in everything you do without you add more to it! You want to add risk - you are likely to be killed. yup.that is why it is stupid to join the army in peacetime and go fight someone elses war. SOB Armies do not need cowards like you anyway The Israeli army is in Afghanistan and Iraq? I dont think so..

That conflict has nothing to do with Israel that is why we are not there.

Karnal wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 1:21pm:

But you haven't faught in a war, have you?

Most people here have not.

Karnal wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 1:21pm:

But you haven't faught in a war, have you?

Have you?

Exactly. Now Avram and I, we know what we're talking about, Mistie. All that balderdash about courage and personal best and serving your country is completely phoney.

You find yourself in 40 degree heat on some Afghan frontier twiddling your thumbs for months on end, and you'll find out exactly how phoney it really is.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 1:25pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 1:21pm: But you haven't faught in a war, have you? Have you?

Bloody oath.

Going on your past dishonesty, I find that very hard to believe.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 1:32pm:

Going on your past dishonesty, I find that very hard to believe.

Don't be so literal, Mistie. You don't literally believe that war inspires all those Olympian feats, do you?

Inspires what feats?

Too many of the Hollywood movies paint a picture of war/conflict to be hero times.

You never ever look for risks, you try to avoid all risks - always.

There is never someone who tries to be the risk taker because his unit will ensure he does not.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 12:21pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:08pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:02pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 6:08am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:06pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:04pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 4:04pm: Even if they chose to go, I still don't see how that's weak minded or moronic. Moreover, how can it be weak minded if you make a conscious decision to participate in the defence force? Well: a) doesnt pay well b) risks are great SOB a. It's not all about money. b. The courageous like risks. How does it make ppl courageous to put themselves in harms way for little pay for no reason? Seriously we arent @ war or anything - we dont need defending. the only reason someone would join up nowadays to go overseas and fight in someone elses war is because they want to kill ppl. Not because they are "brave". SOB You don't understand things like self-determination, courage, honour, risk-taking, striving for betterment, self-cultivation, serving the country, making a difference etc. it more stupid than brave and you arent serving this country. it has nothing to do with honour. you can strive for betterment without going off and killing ppl. SOB See, the thing is, you're unable to look outside your own perspective of the world. You filter everything through your own lens. Here's a hint: The more perspectives you understand, the more you will understand the world and the people in it.

Are you going to address the points or keep on trying to insult me? I guess you dont have an argument huh?

SOB

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 12:23pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:06pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 11:31am: If anyone here has served in the army you would know that every decision you take is with the least risk involved. There is enough risk in everything you do without you add more to it! You want to add risk - you are likely to be killed. yup.that is why it is stupid to join the army in peacetime and go fight someone elses war. SOB Armies do not need cowards like you anyway

And what pray tell makes me a coward? Obviously you dont have a valid argument either.

SOB

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 1:37pm:

Inspires what feats?

Things like self-determination, courage, honour, risk-taking, striving for betterment, self-cultivation, serving the country, making a difference etc.

sitting at home and never have seen a day of conflict in your life - then criticizing those people who do so - is the work of a coward.

I dont have any problems with people who do not serve in the forces - not everybody does so - even in Israel the Orthodox do not - and I prefer that they do not - but when you comment and criticize you are a coward.

Who are you to criticize the military?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 1:47pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:21pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:08pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:02pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 6:08am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:06pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:04pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 4:04pm: Even if they chose to go, I still don't see how that's weak minded or moronic. Moreover, how can it be weak minded if you make a conscious decision to participate in the defence force? Well: a) doesnt pay well b) risks are great SOB a. It's not all about money. b. The courageous like risks. How does it make ppl courageous to put themselves in harms way for little pay for no reason? Seriously we arent @ war or anything - we dont need defending. the only reason someone would join up nowadays to go overseas and fight in someone elses war is because they want to kill ppl. Not because they are "brave". SOB You don't understand things like self-determination, courage, honour, risk-taking, striving for betterment, self-cultivation, serving the country, making a difference etc. it more stupid than brave and you arent serving this country. it has nothing to do with honour. you can strive for betterment without going off and killing ppl. SOB See, the thing is, you're unable to look outside your own perspective of the world. You filter everything through your own lens. Here's a hint: The more perspectives you understand, the more you will understand the world and the people in it. Are you going to address the points or keep on trying to insult me? I guess you dont have an argument huh? SOB

I've already addressed your points. You're just too smacking stupid to realize it.

Karnal wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 1:54pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 1:37pm: Inspires what feats? Things like self-determination, courage, honour, risk-taking, striving for betterment, self-cultivation, serving the country, making a difference etc.

These are some of the reasons why people serve. There would be others, and I am open to understanding other reasons.
Keeping this in context. That stupid SOB stated that soldiers are only joining to kill people. I am attempting to correct that view.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 1:58pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 1:47pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:21pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:08pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:02pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 6:08am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:06pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:04pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 4:04pm: Even if they chose to go, I still don't see how that's weak minded or moronic. Moreover, how can it be weak minded if you make a conscious decision to participate in the defence force? Well: a) doesnt pay well b) risks are great SOB a. It's not all about money. b. The courageous like risks. How does it make ppl courageous to put themselves in harms way for little pay for no reason? Seriously we arent @ war or anything - we dont need defending. the only reason someone would join up nowadays to go overseas and fight in someone elses war is because they want to kill ppl. Not because they are "brave". SOB You don't understand things like self-determination, courage, honour, risk-taking, striving for betterment, self-cultivation, serving the country, making a difference etc. it more stupid than brave and you arent serving this country. it has nothing to do with honour. you can strive for betterment without going off and killing ppl. SOB See, the thing is, you're unable to look outside your own perspective of the world. You filter everything through your own lens. Here's a hint: The more perspectives you understand, the more you will understand the world and the people in it. Are you going to address the points or keep on trying to insult me? I guess you dont have an argument huh? SOB I've already addressed your points. You're just too smacking stupid to realize it.

No you havent. You have just tried to insult me without going anywhere near the topic.

SOB

Avram, get over your self inflated ego

you are not brave.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 1:56pm:

sitting at home and never have seen a day of conflict in your life - then criticizing those people who do so - is the work of a coward. I dont have any problems with people who do not serve in the forces - not everybody does so - even in Israel the Orthodox do not - and I prefer that they do not - but when you comment and criticize you are a coward. Who are you to criticize the military?

How do you know what karnal does?

I haven't seen anyone criticising the military anyway. Pointing out facts about it is not criticising. Also we arent talking about israel. You seem to think every thread is about israel.

SOB

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 2:03pm:

Avram, get over your self inflated ego you are not brave.

My point is people like you have no idea, none whatsoever.

So you are best not making a comment if it is not informed.

The trendies are very vocal about what isn't brave - how about an example or two of what is?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 2:04pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 1:56pm: sitting at home and never have seen a day of conflict in your life - then criticizing those people who do so - is the work of a coward. I dont have any problems with people who do not serve in the forces - not everybody does so - even in Israel the Orthodox do not - and I prefer that they do not - but when you comment and criticize you are a coward. Who are you to criticize the military? How do you know what karnal does? I haven't seen anyone criticising the military anyway. Pointing out facts about it is not criticising. Also we arent talking about israel. You seem to think every thread is about israel. SOB

Nothing to do with Israel - it is you who makes idiot comments all the time about everything.
This time it is the military.

You wonder why so many people here think you are a fool?

Just read all your ridiculous comments.

Even the site owner called you a idiot.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 2:02pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 1:58pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 1:47pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:21pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:08pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:02pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 6:08am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:06pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:04pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 4:04pm: Even if they chose to go, I still don't see how that's weak minded or moronic. Moreover, how can it be weak minded if you make a conscious decision to participate in the defence force? Well: a) doesnt pay well b) risks are great SOB a. It's not all about money. b. The courageous like risks. How does it make ppl courageous to put themselves in harms way for little pay for no reason? Seriously we arent @ war or anything - we dont need defending. the only reason someone would join up nowadays to go overseas and fight in someone elses war is because they want to kill ppl. Not because they are "brave". SOB You don't understand things like self-determination, courage, honour, risk-taking, striving for betterment, self-cultivation, serving the country, making a difference etc. it more stupid than brave and you arent serving this country. it has nothing to do with honour. you can strive for betterment without going off and killing ppl. SOB See, the thing is, you're unable to look outside your own perspective of the world. You filter everything through your own lens. Here's a hint: The more perspectives you understand, the more you will understand the world and the people in it. Are you going to address the points or keep on trying to insult me? I guess you dont have an argument huh? SOB I've already addressed your points. You're just too smacking stupid to realize it. No you havent. You have just tried to insult me without going anywhere near the topic. SOB

I am not going to get drawn into any type of discussion with you. Every smacking thread you get involved in ends up in the most useless back and forth exchanges that have little to do with the topic at hand. Most members here know this and you've been pulled up on it time and time again, yet none of it sinks in.
You truly are the King of the Retards!

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 1:56pm:

sitting at home and never have seen a day of conflict in your life - then criticizing those people who do so - is the work of a coward. I dont have any problems with people who do not serve in the forces - not everybody does so - even in Israel the Orthodox do not - and I prefer that they do not

There's plenty of people I wouldn't want in the army, old son. Most of the choccos on this board for a start. They love to bleat on about how great it is to serve, but they wouldn't know the first thing.

Fighting a war is - for the most part - boring. You sit around cleaning your weapon and talking sh!t most of the time.

When you get in a blue it's quick. You're never prepared for it. You do what you can and get out as quick as you can. The last thing you want is heroes smacking around. Sure, most soldiers like a bit of a blue, but we can't stand a smacking hero.

Leave all that bullsh!t to the officers.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 2:04pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 1:56pm: sitting at home and never have seen a day of conflict in your life - then criticizing those people who do so - is the work of a coward. I dont have any problems with people who do not serve in the forces - not everybody does so - even in Israel the Orthodox do not - and I prefer that they do not - but when you comment and criticize you are a coward. Who are you to criticize the military? How do you know what karnal does? I haven't seen anyone criticising the military anyway. Pointing out facts about it is not criticising. Also we arent talking about israel. You seem to think every thread is about israel. SOB

You make amoebas seem smart by comparison.

Not criticisng, just pointing out facts.

*smirk*

... wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 2:05pm:

The trendies are very vocal about what isn't brave - how about an example or two of what is?

Having a kid. Bravest thing I've ever done. Be a hero to your son or daughter.

In the army, that's where most blokes want to be - back home.

And that's exactly where every soldier should be.

Karnal wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 2:09pm:

... wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 2:05pm: The trendies are very vocal about what isn't brave - how about an example or two of what is? Having a kid. Bravest thing I've ever done. Be a hero to your son or daughter. In the army, that's where most blokes want to be - back home. And that's exactly where every soldier should be.

Rewarding, yes.
Brave, not at all.

Bravery is committment, old son. You can't undo having a kid. You're stuck with them for 20 years or so - longer than most stints in the army.

Karnal wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 2:06pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 1:56pm: sitting at home and never have seen a day of conflict in your life - then criticizing those people who do so - is the work of a coward. I dont have any problems with people who do not serve in the forces - not everybody does so - even in Israel the Orthodox do not - and I prefer that they do not There's plenty of people I wouldn't want in the army, old son. Most of the choccos on this board for a start. They love to bleat on about how great it is to serve, but they wouldn't know the first thing. Fighting a war is - for the most part - boring. You sit around cleaning your weapon and talking sh!t most of the time. When you get in a blue it's quick. You're never prepared for it. You do what you can and get out as quick as you can. The last thing you want is heroes smacking around. Sure, most soldiers like a bit of a blue, but we can't stand a smacking hero. Leave all that bullsh!t to the officers.

I actually agree with all this.

Nobody i have ever served in the army along with - wants to be a hero.

I preferred all the time when we did not have the conflict.

The boring is also what it can be as well - i remember well one day the 3 of us on a big hill checkpoint where nobody came for about 7 hours - we tried to name all the winners of the world cups from Uruguay to today.

For me it was 15% of my 2.5 years active service in conflict situation and 75% checking ID and pass cards of citizens, 10% of nothing at all.

This is same everywhere - even worse for peaceful countries like Australia.

Karnal wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 2:14pm:

Bravery is committment, old son. You can't undo having a kid. You're stuck with them for 20 years or so - longer than most stints in the army.

Bravery is forging ahead despite the risk to ones self.  Where's the risk?  Wheres the conscious decision to push on, when there is no alternative?

C'mon Karnal - you know it's a cop out. 

Elvis - it depends.

The subject is very very open ends.

Think - if someone is pushing on, despite the risk - is it brave or is it stupid?

What is the reason they are pushing on?

If it is to assist and help a injured colleague then there is the merit.

If it is to try to remove a enemy - it is not brave - he is risking many things and the more sensible is to pull back and re-engage the situation.

... wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 2:16pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 2:14pm: Bravery is committment, old son. You can't undo having a kid. You're stuck with them for 20 years or so - longer than most stints in the army. Bravery is forging ahead despite the risk to ones self.  Where's the risk?  Wheres the conscious decision to push on, when there is no alternative? C'mon Karnal - you know it's a cop out.

Easy for you maybe - a cushy job in a developed country where you can post on this board all day and go home on time.

80% of the world live on a few dollars a day. The choices and opportunities there are different. Try being a foreign guest worker in Saudi Arabia and spending years without your family doing nothing but work and sending the money home.

Most jobs in developing countries are 10 to 12 hour shifts, six days a week, and you're lucky to have the job. Hardly a cop out.

I'm not sure that you know just how privaleged you really are: no war, good income, no food, water or electricty shortages. You don't live in a slum.

Before criticising others for their bad luck, you might like to acknowledge your own.

And it is luck, you know. None of us have done that much to earn it.

Karnal wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 2:24pm:

... wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 2:16pm: Karnal wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 2:14pm: Bravery is committment, old son. You can't undo having a kid. You're stuck with them for 20 years or so - longer than most stints in the army. Bravery is forging ahead despite the risk to ones self.  Where's the risk?  Wheres the conscious decision to push on, when there is no alternative? C'mon Karnal - you know it's a cop out.  Easy for you maybe - a cushy job in a developed country where you can post on this board all day and go home on time.

You don't strike me as the kind of guy who works hard, or in difficult conditions.  So bearing in mind your previous statement:


Karnal wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 2:09pm:

Having a kid. Bravest thing I've ever done.

Explain to me how having a kid, while holding down a cushy job in a developed country makes you 'brave'.

Stop being a pedantic old queen and be grateful for what you've got, Honky.

Having a kid is brave because it means putting someone else's life first.

And I've got the cushiest job in the world.

Karnal wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 2:32pm:

Stop being a pedantic old queen and be grateful for what you've got, Honky. Having a kid is brave because it means putting someone else's life first.

So what you mean is that throughout the course of a childs life, you may be called upon to do brave deeds.  So having a kid is motivation for bravery, not bravery itself.  Nothing about having a kid ie rooting a shiela is inherently "brave." Unless of course she looks like your wife. 

... wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 2:36pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 2:32pm: Stop being a pedantic old queen and be grateful for what you've got, Honky. Having a kid is brave because it means putting someone else's life first. So what you mean is that throughout the course of a childs life, you may be called upon to do brave deeds.  So having a kid is motivation for bravery, not bravery itself.  Nothing about having a kid ie rooting a shiela is inherently "brave." Unless of course she looks like your wife.

Shooting one in there is easy, old son. Raising them up is much harder.

Getting them to do what you say means changing how you say things.

Karnal wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 2:24pm:

... wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 2:16pm: Karnal wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 2:14pm: Bravery is committment, old son. You can't undo having a kid. You're stuck with them for 20 years or so - longer than most stints in the army. Bravery is forging ahead despite the risk to ones self.  Where's the risk?  Wheres the conscious decision to push on, when there is no alternative? C'mon Karnal - you know it's a cop out.  Easy for you maybe - a cushy job in a developed country where you can post on this board all day and go home on time. 80% of the world live on a few dollars a day. The choices and opportunities there are different. Try being a foreign guest worker in Saudi Arabia and spending years without your family doing nothing but work and sending the money home. Most jobs in developing countries are 10 to 12 hour shifts, six days a week, and you're lucky to have the job. Hardly a cop out. I'm not sure that you know just how privaleged you really are: no war, good income, no food, water or electricty shortages. You don't live in a slum. Before criticising others for their bad luck, you might like to acknowledge your own. And it is luck, you know. None of us have done that much to earn it.

You can only call it luck when you sever the ties of the past. And this is what the neo-Marxists are very good at: removing all bonds between men. Destroying the family and the civilization link between men is at work here when trying to put it all down to luck. Luck only plays a part. Previous generations worked their arses off to give us what we have today. We should be thankful for that. But it's not trendy to thank our forefathers is it. No, we must rebel! rebel! rebel! like good little trendies.

That's right, son. Previous generations of workers, convicts, slaves and immigrants. The lot.

How about those Kanaks, eh? Cutting sugarcane in the Queensland heat with machetes. Thirsty work, that.

You don't sound very grateful, son. You just sound psssed off.

i have not raised a child so yet - i am not even married so far.

I have all this fun to come.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 3:03pm:

i have not raised a child so yet - i am not even married so far. I have all this fun to come.

Not if you keep trying your hardest to get your people holocausted.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 2:06pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 2:04pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 1:56pm: sitting at home and never have seen a day of conflict in your life - then criticizing those people who do so - is the work of a coward. I dont have any problems with people who do not serve in the forces - not everybody does so - even in Israel the Orthodox do not - and I prefer that they do not - but when you comment and criticize you are a coward. Who are you to criticize the military? How do you know what karnal does? I haven't seen anyone criticising the military anyway. Pointing out facts about it is not criticising. Also we arent talking about israel. You seem to think every thread is about israel. SOB Nothing to do with Israel - it is you who makes idiot comments all the time about everything. This time it is the military. You wonder why so many people here think you are a fool? Just read all your ridiculous comments. Even the site owner called you a idiot.

Again not addressing the points. You really cant handle being wrong can you. You try to insult instead of addressing the topic. hahahaahahha! Oh and i didnt bring up israel  - you did.

how do you feel arab militaries? Are they brave?

SOB

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 2:06pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 2:02pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 1:58pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 1:47pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:21pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:08pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:02pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 6:08am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:06pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:04pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 4:04pm: Even if they chose to go, I still don't see how that's weak minded or moronic. Moreover, how can it be weak minded if you make a conscious decision to participate in the defence force? Well: a) doesnt pay well b) risks are great SOB a. It's not all about money. b. The courageous like risks. How does it make ppl courageous to put themselves in harms way for little pay for no reason? Seriously we arent @ war or anything - we dont need defending. the only reason someone would join up nowadays to go overseas and fight in someone elses war is because they want to kill ppl. Not because they are "brave". SOB You don't understand things like self-determination, courage, honour, risk-taking, striving for betterment, self-cultivation, serving the country, making a difference etc. it more stupid than brave and you arent serving this country. it has nothing to do with honour. you can strive for betterment without going off and killing ppl. SOB See, the thing is, you're unable to look outside your own perspective of the world. You filter everything through your own lens. Here's a hint: The more perspectives you understand, the more you will understand the world and the people in it. Are you going to address the points or keep on trying to insult me? I guess you dont have an argument huh? SOB I've already addressed your points. You're just too smacking stupid to realize it. No you havent. You have just tried to insult me without going anywhere near the topic. SOB I am not going to get drawn into any type of discussion with you. Every smacking thread you get involved in ends up in the most useless back and forth exchanges that have little to do with the topic at hand. Most members here know this and you've been pulled up on it time and time again, yet none of it sinks in. You truly are the King of the Retards!

Because you pick on me instead of the topics. Pretty simple really. Address the topic and stop trying to score points and you will do fine.

SOB

... wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 2:06pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 2:04pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 1:56pm: sitting at home and never have seen a day of conflict in your life - then criticizing those people who do so - is the work of a coward. I dont have any problems with people who do not serve in the forces - not everybody does so - even in Israel the Orthodox do not - and I prefer that they do not - but when you comment and criticize you are a coward. Who are you to criticize the military? How do you know what karnal does? I haven't seen anyone criticising the military anyway. Pointing out facts about it is not criticising. Also we arent talking about israel. You seem to think every thread is about israel. SOB You make amoebas seem smart by comparison. Not criticisng, just pointing out facts. *smirk*

Obviously you dont like addressing issues either.

SOB

What do you get out of coming to this forum SOB?

Everyone either ignores you, or insults you.  So why do you keep coming back for more?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 3:50pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 2:06pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 2:02pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 1:58pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 1:47pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:21pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:08pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:02pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 6:08am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:06pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:04pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 4:04pm: Even if they chose to go, I still don't see how that's weak minded or moronic. Moreover, how can it be weak minded if you make a conscious decision to participate in the defence force? Well: a) doesnt pay well b) risks are great SOB a. It's not all about money. b. The courageous like risks. How does it make ppl courageous to put themselves in harms way for little pay for no reason? Seriously we arent @ war or anything - we dont need defending. the only reason someone would join up nowadays to go overseas and fight in someone elses war is because they want to kill ppl. Not because they are "brave". SOB You don't understand things like self-determination, courage, honour, risk-taking, striving for betterment, self-cultivation, serving the country, making a difference etc. it more stupid than brave and you arent serving this country. it has nothing to do with honour. you can strive for betterment without going off and killing ppl. SOB See, the thing is, you're unable to look outside your own perspective of the world. You filter everything through your own lens. Here's a hint: The more perspectives you understand, the more you will understand the world and the people in it. Are you going to address the points or keep on trying to insult me? I guess you dont have an argument huh? SOB I've already addressed your points. You're just too smacking stupid to realize it. No you havent. You have just tried to insult me without going anywhere near the topic. SOB I am not going to get drawn into any type of discussion with you. Every smacking thread you get involved in ends up in the most useless back and forth exchanges that have little to do with the topic at hand. Most members here know this and you've been pulled up on it time and time again, yet none of it sinks in. You truly are the King of the Retards! Because you pick on me instead of the topics. Pretty simple really. Address the topic and stop trying to score points and you will do fine. SOB

Disagreeing with someone on an issue is not 'pick[ing] on' them. This is what happens in debate; you exchange views, point out the contradictions and inconsistencies. If you don't want your views challenged, then leave.

I addressed your points. You reduced all people's desire to join the armed services to 'they want to kill ppl(sic)'. I pointed out a number of other reasons that escaped your perspective on why they might join. Take this as an 'insult' if you like. But the point is that there may be multiple other reasons why people serve other than to kill people.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 3:48pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 2:06pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 2:04pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 1:56pm: sitting at home and never have seen a day of conflict in your life - then criticizing those people who do so - is the work of a coward. I dont have any problems with people who do not serve in the forces - not everybody does so - even in Israel the Orthodox do not - and I prefer that they do not - but when you comment and criticize you are a coward. Who are you to criticize the military? How do you know what karnal does? I haven't seen anyone criticising the military anyway. Pointing out facts about it is not criticising. Also we arent talking about israel. You seem to think every thread is about israel. SOB Nothing to do with Israel - it is you who makes idiot comments all the time about everything. This time it is the military. You wonder why so many people here think you are a fool? Just read all your ridiculous comments. Even the site owner called you a idiot. Again not addressing the points. You really cant handle being wrong can you. You try to insult instead of addressing the topic. hahahaahahha! Oh and i didnt bring up israel  - you did. how do you feel arab militaries? Are they brave? SOB

Actually I don't think he brought it up at all. Like always as soon as he post on a thread the same dicks (and you are one of them) come flocking in saying "look what Israel is doing to the Palestinians", Child killers", "The world will get you" etc. 

Same sh1t over and over again. There is about a dozen different threads on this forum that in the last couple of days have become bash the Jew sessions just because an Israeli dared give a comment on a topic.

... wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 3:55pm:

What do you get out of coming to this forum SOB? Everyone either ignores you, or insults you.  So why do you keep coming back for more?

You're starting to sound like longweekend/gold_medal.

No, everyone doesn't ignore him or insult him.

And no, everyone is not an idiot.

Only idiots insult him.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 4:22pm:

... wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 3:55pm: What do you get out of coming to this forum SOB? Everyone either ignores you, or insults you.  So why do you keep coming back for more? You're starting to sound like longweekend/gold_medal. No, everyone doesn't ignore him or insult him. And no, everyone is not an idiot. Only idiots insult him.

What are you - his mama?

You just like that theres finally someone dumber than you on this forum. 

... wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 3:55pm:

What do you get out of coming to this forum SOB? Everyone either ignores you, or insults you.  So why do you keep coming back for more?

Not everyone - just the trolls....

SOB

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 4:19pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 3:50pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 2:06pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 2:02pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 1:58pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 1:47pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:21pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:08pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:02pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 6:08am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:06pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 5:04pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2012 at 4:04pm: Even if they chose to go, I still don't see how that's weak minded or moronic. Moreover, how can it be weak minded if you make a conscious decision to participate in the defence force? Well: a) doesnt pay well b) risks are great SOB a. It's not all about money. b. The courageous like risks. How does it make ppl courageous to put themselves in harms way for little pay for no reason? Seriously we arent @ war or anything - we dont need defending. the only reason someone would join up nowadays to go overseas and fight in someone elses war is because they want to kill ppl. Not because they are "brave". SOB You don't understand things like self-determination, courage, honour, risk-taking, striving for betterment, self-cultivation, serving the country, making a difference etc. it more stupid than brave and you arent serving this country. it has nothing to do with honour. you can strive for betterment without going off and killing ppl. SOB See, the thing is, you're unable to look outside your own perspective of the world. You filter everything through your own lens. Here's a hint: The more perspectives you understand, the more you will understand the world and the people in it. Are you going to address the points or keep on trying to insult me? I guess you dont have an argument huh? SOB I've already addressed your points. You're just too smacking stupid to realize it. No you havent. You have just tried to insult me without going anywhere near the topic. SOB I am not going to get drawn into any type of discussion with you. Every smacking thread you get involved in ends up in the most useless back and forth exchanges that have little to do with the topic at hand. Most members here know this and you've been pulled up on it time and time again, yet none of it sinks in. You truly are the King of the Retards! Because you pick on me instead of the topics. Pretty simple really. Address the topic and stop trying to score points and you will do fine. SOB Disagreeing with someone on an issue is not 'pick[ing] on' them. This is what happens in debate; you exchange views, point out the contradictions and inconsistencies. If you don't want your views challenged, then leave. I addressed your points. You reduced all people's desire to join the armed services to 'they want to kill ppl(sic)'. I pointed out a number of other reasons that escaped your perspective on why they might join. Take this as an 'insult' if you like. But the point is that there may be multiple other reasons why people serve other than to kill people.

But you dont disagree with me you just say crap like "you are stupid" and "king of the retards" which isnt an argument @ all.

SOB

I think you are both trashing this Poll/thread.
its also personal bullshite., boring and repetitive.
So  shut up and take yourselves somewhere else.....

not much respect for the gravitas of the topic  IMO >:( >:(...

Quote:

Karnal - "you cant beat an insurgency"

According to Karnal every rebellion is successful. What a load of crap. What IS true is that you can't win wars - somebody has to agree to lose.

Winning takes resolve, superior force and better organisation. If you have those things the other side loses, no matter who they are. We ought to have those things and if we don't we need to take a good hard look at ourselves.

ahh . The Art of War.

Wisdom across the millenia. :)

Grey wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 10:08pm:

Quote: Karnal - "you cant beat an insurgency" According to Karnal every rebellion is successful. What a load of crap. What IS true is that you can't win wars - somebody has to agree to lose. Winning takes resolve, superior force and better organisation. If you have those things the other side loses, no matter who they are. We ought to have those things and if we don't we need to take a good hard look at ourselves.

Resolve, purpose, superior force, superior training, better organised.

Grey it is these things which is why I have a photo of my father and uncle in the Sinai in 1967 waving victory signs.

Always be better prepared than your enemy and always show resolve.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 11:31pm:

Grey wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 10:08pm: Quote: Karnal - "you cant beat an insurgency" According to Karnal every rebellion is successful. What a load of crap. What IS true is that you can't win wars - somebody has to agree to lose. Winning takes resolve, superior force and better organisation. If you have those things the other side loses, no matter who they are. We ought to have those things and if we don't we need to take a good hard look at ourselves. Resolve, purpose, superior force, superior training, better organised. Grey it is these things which is why I have a photo of my father and uncle in the Sinai in 1967 waving victory signs. Always be better prepared than your enemy and always show resolve.

Then hitler should have won then. Everyone else shoudla stayed out of it. He was superior to you.

SOB

Hitler was at war with Uk, Russia, France and USA you idiot.

Goodness and you wonder why everyone thinks you are an idiot?

Grey wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 10:08pm:

Quote: Karnal - "you cant beat an insurgency" According to Karnal every rebellion is successful. What a load of crap. What IS true is that you can't win wars - somebody has to agree to lose. Winning takes resolve, superior force and better organisation. If you have those things the other side loses, no matter who they are. We ought to have those things and if we don't we need to take a good hard look at ourselves.

Not every rebellion - every conflict where you have the local population on side.

In WWII, the Amerikans had chewing gum and nylon stockings. In Vietnam, the Viet Cong had rice and doctors.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban have one thing: the majority of them are Afghans.

For the Afghans, this is a question of nationalism. You'll never pin them down for long. They'll die defending themselves.

However, many Taliban cells are Pakistani. Afghanistan and Pakistan have been hostile to each other since the British were around. They are not united - far from it - but groups like Al Qaida and other militant Islamicists have staged a crusade out of regional rivalries and disputes.

This is how the Soviets were defeated. The battle for Afghanistan in the 1980s - along with Kashmir - was the genesis of militant Islam.

The West has not defeated these groups. Instead, locals have turned away from them. Al Qaida made themselves hated in Iraq. The Taliban aren't too popular either, but because they're locals they get support.

The Taliban don't give out gum and stockings. They provide security. In a country torn apart by invaders, warlords and tribal rivalries, the Taliban provide a form of order. It's a brutal form of justice, but many Afghanis prefer the devil they know.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 7:47am:

Hitler was at war with Uk, Russia, France and USA you idiot. Goodness and you wonder why everyone thinks you are an idiot?

Mr stupid seems you dont understand anything. My point was that if all you have to do is show superior resolve then the jews should be wiped out shouldn't they? Doesnt matter about anyone else - they rescued the jews.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 11:12am:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 4th, 2012 at 7:47am: Hitler was at war with Uk, Russia, France and USA you idiot. Goodness and you wonder why everyone thinks you are an idiot? Mr stupid seems you dont understand anything. My point was that if all you have to do is show superior resolve then the jews should be wiped out shouldn't they? Doesnt matter about anyone else - they rescued the jews. SOB

This is what you said;


Quote:

Then hitler should have won then. Everyone else shoudla stayed out of it. He was superior to you.

What? WWII was just Hitler vs the Jews? Everyone came in to help the Jews? Is that seriously how black and white WWII is?

Should the countries that Hitler was invading stayed out of it as well? Should the agreements that other nations had to support each other (the agreements that dragged them into the war) have been broken as well? Do you have any idea what happened in WWII at all?

Quantum wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 12:36pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 4th, 2012 at 11:12am: Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 4th, 2012 at 7:47am: Hitler was at war with Uk, Russia, France and USA you idiot. Goodness and you wonder why everyone thinks you are an idiot? Mr stupid seems you dont understand anything. My point was that if all you have to do is show superior resolve then the jews should be wiped out shouldn't they? Doesnt matter about anyone else - they rescued the jews. SOB This is what you said; Quote: Then hitler should have won then. Everyone else shoudla stayed out of it. He was superior to you. What? WWII was just Hitler vs the Jews? Everyone came in to help the Jews? Is that seriously how black and white WWII is? Should the countries that Hitler was invading stayed out of it as well? Should the agreements that other nations had to support each other (the agreements that dragged them into the war) have been broken as well? Do you have any idea what happened in WWII at all?

Stop being a smacking dimwit. I was having a tongue in cheek go @ avram. not only none of you business but i think you know exactly what i meant and are just using it as an excuse to start your attempted bullying again because you are obsessed for some reason and you are too stupid to realise how transparent you are.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 4:21pm:

Quantum wrote on Sep 4th, 2012 at 12:36pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 4th, 2012 at 11:12am: Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 4th, 2012 at 7:47am: Hitler was at war with Uk, Russia, France and USA you idiot. Goodness and you wonder why everyone thinks you are an idiot? Mr stupid seems you dont understand anything. My point was that if all you have to do is show superior resolve then the jews should be wiped out shouldn't they? Doesnt matter about anyone else - they rescued the jews. SOB This is what you said; Quote: Then hitler should have won then. Everyone else shoudla stayed out of it. He was superior to you. What? WWII was just Hitler vs the Jews? Everyone came in to help the Jews? Is that seriously how black and white WWII is? Should the countries that Hitler was invading stayed out of it as well? Should the agreements that other nations had to support each other (the agreements that dragged them into the war) have been broken as well? Do you have any idea what happened in WWII at all? Stop being a smacking dimwit. I was having a tongue in cheek go @ avram. not only none of you business but i think you know exactly what i meant and are just using it as an excuse to start your attempted bullying again because you are obsessed for some reason and you are too stupid to realise how transparent you are. SOB

If you didn't keep saying stupid things showing your ignorance (for example, claiming that Herod is just a fiction), and if you worked on your writing and reading skills, maybe people would be able to detect your tongue in cheek moments.

As for bullying, perhaps if you and your band of bastards didn't keep going from thread to thread turning every topic into a bash the Jew feast, then maybe people like myself may stay clear as well. Instead, you want to gang up on someone for idiotic reasons, but you don't want anyone else getting involved unless they are joining in on the beat up.

I doubt anyone is taking your hateful and factually incorrect comments as tongue in cheek. Most people (except for those you have brought over from your own forum to defend and agree with you) think you're a damn fool.

Quantum wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 4:36pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 4th, 2012 at 4:21pm: Quantum wrote on Sep 4th, 2012 at 12:36pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 4th, 2012 at 11:12am: Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 4th, 2012 at 7:47am: Hitler was at war with Uk, Russia, France and USA you idiot. Goodness and you wonder why everyone thinks you are an idiot? Mr stupid seems you dont understand anything. My point was that if all you have to do is show superior resolve then the jews should be wiped out shouldn't they? Doesnt matter about anyone else - they rescued the jews. SOB This is what you said; Quote: Then hitler should have won then. Everyone else shoudla stayed out of it. He was superior to you. What? WWII was just Hitler vs the Jews? Everyone came in to help the Jews? Is that seriously how black and white WWII is? Should the countries that Hitler was invading stayed out of it as well? Should the agreements that other nations had to support each other (the agreements that dragged them into the war) have been broken as well? Do you have any idea what happened in WWII at all? Stop being a smacking dimwit. I was having a tongue in cheek go @ avram. not only none of you business but i think you know exactly what i meant and are just using it as an excuse to start your attempted bullying again because you are obsessed for some reason and you are too stupid to realise how transparent you are. SOB If you didn't keep saying stupid things showing your ignorance (for example, claiming that Herod is just a fiction), and if you worked on your writing and reading skills, maybe people would be able to detect your tongue in cheek moments. As for bullying, perhaps if you and your band of bastards didn't keep going from thread to thread turning every topic into a bash the Jew feast, then maybe people like myself may stay clear as well. Instead, you want to gang up on someone for idiotic reasons, but you don't want anyone else getting involved unless they are joining in on the beat up. I doubt anyone is taking your hateful and factually incorrect comments as tongue in cheek. Most people (except for those you have brought over from your own forum to defend and agree with you) think you're a damn fool.

WTF? Who are my band of bastards? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

SOB

At this time, I am, like many I know, very upset and even gutted by the recent events in The Ghan - and I do not feel like going near the RSL this week.

I do not feel that our current exit plan means anything in the long run - and the country will rapidly - almost overnight really - revert to is former level of near-anarchy or oppressive government, with all the same old killings and things going on and on.

All this plan will do is cost more Australian and American lives - and we are holding on from pride and the perceived need to support and reinforce our treaty(ies) with the United States - our one guarantee of survival in an increasingly tough world out there.

While there is political virtue in doing that - I am deeply upset by the deaths of young troopers. :'(

SOB he is correct. Your history and general knowledge is appalling.

You just look a fool all the time.
I can't believe somebody 50years old could be so ignorant.

Karnal wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 10:11am:

Grey wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 10:08pm: Quote: Karnal - "you cant beat an insurgency" According to Karnal every rebellion is successful. What a load of crap. What IS true is that you can't win wars - somebody has to agree to lose. Winning takes resolve, superior force and better organisation. If you have those things the other side loses, no matter who they are. We ought to have those things and if we don't we need to take a good hard look at ourselves. Not every rebellion - every conflict where you have the local population on side. In WWII, the Amerikans had chewing gum and nylon stockings. In Vietnam, the Viet Cong had rice and doctors. In Afghanistan, the Taliban have one thing: the majority of them are Afghans. For the Afghans, this is a question of nationalism. You'll never pin them down for long. They'll die defending themselves. However, many Taliban cells are Pakistani. Afghanistan and Pakistan have been hostile to each other since the British were around. They are not united - far from it - but groups like Al Qaida and other militant Islamicists have staged a crusade out of regional rivalries and disputes. This is how the Soviets were defeated. The battle for Afghanistan in the 1980s - along with Kashmir - was the genesis of militant Islam. The West has not defeated these groups. Instead, locals have turned away from them. Al Qaida made themselves hated in Iraq. The Taliban aren't too popular either, but because they're locals they get support. The Taliban don't give out gum and stockings. They provide security. In a country torn apart by invaders, warlords and tribal rivalries, the Taliban provide a form of order. It's a brutal form of justice, but many Afghanis prefer the devil they know.

Nobody wants to be ruled by religious zealots who behead people for dancing. Afghans are firstly people like all others. There is no 'Afghan nationalism', it's the Pashtun/talibs V the rest.

What's going to happen after the pull out is the re-emergence of the Northern Alliance with massive Russian support. Then it depends on whether there's a US president mad enough to bleed Americans dry to support the 'military-industrial complex' or whether there's a liberal who wont want a bar of Afghanistan.

In the latter case the Russians will back the NA with the Russian army and probably wont stop killing Talibs until they reach India. Great game over, USSR dead Long live the Putin Empire. :)

The Taliban provided safety and training camps for terrorists who planned and attacked our countries.

Maybe some of you have forgotten the horrors of 9/11, London and Madrid.

The reason we are fighting in Afghanistan is to stop this support of terror.
It has not been for no reason and progress has been made.

It is one of the most hostile terrains in the world.

Quote:

It is one of the most hostile terrains in the world.

Is it? Why's that then? Surely a place that's growing poppy fields all over can't be all that harsh? Mountains? Well there's Switzerland and Tibet and Antartica. Desert? Quite a bit in your neck of the woods.

All this talk of the 'most hostile terain on the planet' is just bullshyte written by people who've never been there. All Afghanistan's problems have arrived from outside, nothing to do with the land itself which is potentially one of the most beautiful places on Earth.

In fact for four decades under the last King (Mohammed Zahir Shah) Afghanistan was doing rather nicely as it made the transitision into a modern state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Zahir_Shah

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 8:35pm:

The Taliban provided safety and training camps for terrorists who planned and attacked our countries. Maybe some of you have forgotten the horrors of 9/11, London and Madrid. The reason we are fighting in Afghanistan is to stop this support of terror. It has not been for no reason and progress has been made. It is one of the most hostile terrains in the world.

What is terrorism??

  ;) ;)
Face it, Nuclear Weapons have been proven impotent and you just don't like it!!  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o  ::)

Grey wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 8:31pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 4th, 2012 at 10:11am: Grey wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 10:08pm: Quote: Karnal - "you cant beat an insurgency" According to Karnal every rebellion is successful. What a load of crap. What IS true is that you can't win wars - somebody has to agree to lose. Winning takes resolve, superior force and better organisation. If you have those things the other side loses, no matter who they are. We ought to have those things and if we don't we need to take a good hard look at ourselves. Not every rebellion - every conflict where you have the local population on side. In WWII, the Amerikans had chewing gum and nylon stockings. In Vietnam, the Viet Cong had rice and doctors. In Afghanistan, the Taliban have one thing: the majority of them are Afghans. For the Afghans, this is a question of nationalism. You'll never pin them down for long. They'll die defending themselves. However, many Taliban cells are Pakistani. Afghanistan and Pakistan have been hostile to each other since the British were around. They are not united - far from it - but groups like Al Qaida and other militant Islamicists have staged a crusade out of regional rivalries and disputes. This is how the Soviets were defeated. The battle for Afghanistan in the 1980s - along with Kashmir - was the genesis of militant Islam. The West has not defeated these groups. Instead, locals have turned away from them. Al Qaida made themselves hated in Iraq. The Taliban aren't too popular either, but because they're locals they get support. The Taliban don't give out gum and stockings. They provide security. In a country torn apart by invaders, warlords and tribal rivalries, the Taliban provide a form of order. It's a brutal form of justice, but many Afghanis prefer the devil they know. Nobody wants to be ruled by religious zealots who behead people for dancing. Afghans are firstly people like all others. There is no 'Afghan nationalism', it's the Pashtun/talibs V the rest. What's going to happen after the pull out is the re-emergence of the Northern Alliance with massive Russian support. Then it depends on whether there's a US president mad enough to bleed Americans dry to support the 'military-industrial complex' or whether there's a liberal who wont want a bar of Afghanistan. In the latter case the Russians will back the NA with the Russian army and probably wont stop killing Talibs until they reach India. Great game over, USSR dead Long live the Putin Empire. :)

Grey, the Northern Alliance formed to defeat the USSR. They were funded by the CIA. Has Putin got anything to do with the former satelites? You'd think he learned something from Chechnya.

Still, anything's possible. I'm backing Pakistan, but you probably knew that much.

I have no idea how bad the Taliban were, but many Afghanis want them back. Go figure.

Afghanistan is not the West. And it is has some of the most brutal terrain in the world. The Khyber Pass is not rhyming slang for a rather dark part of the human anatomy for nothing. Many parts of Afghanistan are unreachable during Winter.

Hence the success of the Northern Alliance. The US supplied them by air.

The Taliban were stuck with mules. Alas, this is the future of Aghanistan after 2014.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 8:09pm:

SOB he is correct. Your history and general knowledge is appalling. You just look a fool all the time. I can't believe somebody 50years old could be so ignorant.

You just cant handle the truth . . . .

SOB

ADDS to previous post on this issue:-  As Spot of Borg said - the gangsters will be back in force within weeks etc..

I'm not a raging leftie by any means - I have past affiliations with the ex-pat Vietnamese community here - and the family of a former high-ranking officer in Saigon.  His family business provided the 'white mice' military police for the Saigon district, the river pilots and so forth - and were actually the river pirates of the area (and had some serious issues with those near the river mouth).

After the Communist takeover - it was business as usual - but with a different head since he and family were forced to flee.  The pirates were still around, through Yanks or Communists or whatever...business as usual..

That - my children - is the reality of 'politics' in many such countries. :o

(Kisses off tips of fingers....Ah ...Afghanistan!).....

Karnal wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 11:25am:

Soren wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 10:50am: You must yourselves realize the power of your country, and feed your eyes upon her from day to day, till love of her fills your hearts; and then, when all her greatness shall break upon you, you must reflect that it was by courage, sense of duty, and a keen feeling of honour in action that men were enabled to win all this, and that no personal failure in an enterprise could make them consent to deprive their country of their valour, but they laid it at her feet as the most glorious contribution that they could offer. For this offering of their lives made in common by them all they each of them individually received that renown which never grows old, and for a sepulchre, not so much that in which their bones have been deposited, but that noblest of shrines wherein their glory is laid up to be eternally remembered upon every occasion on which deed or story shall call for its commemoration. For heroes have the whole earth for their tomb; and in lands far from their own, where the column with its epitaph declares it, there is enshrined in every breast a record unwritten with no tablet to preserve it, except that of the heart. These take as your model and, judging happiness to be the fruit of freedom and freedom of valour, never decline the dangers of war. For it is not the miserable that would most justly be unsparing of their lives; these have nothing to hope for: it is rather they to whom continued life may bring reverses as yet unknown, and to whom a fall, if it came, would be most tremendous in its consequences. And surely, to a man of spirit, the degradation of cowardice must be immeasurably more grievous than the unfelt death which strikes him in the midst of his strength and patriotism! Marvellous stuff, old chap. Suharto? Mahatir? Lee Quan Yew?

Pericles, barbarian.

Karnal wrote on Sep 5^th, 2012 at 12:04am:

Grey wrote on Sep 4th, 2012 at 8:31pm: Karnal wrote on Sep 4th, 2012 at 10:11am: Grey wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 10:08pm: Quote: Karnal - "you cant beat an insurgency" According to Karnal every rebellion is successful. What a load of crap. What IS true is that you can't win wars - somebody has to agree to lose. Winning takes resolve, superior force and better organisation. If you have those things the other side loses, no matter who they are. We ought to have those things and if we don't we need to take a good hard look at ourselves. Not every rebellion - every conflict where you have the local population on side. In WWII, the Amerikans had chewing gum and nylon stockings. In Vietnam, the Viet Cong had rice and doctors. In Afghanistan, the Taliban have one thing: the majority of them are Afghans. For the Afghans, this is a question of nationalism. You'll never pin them down for long. They'll die defending themselves. However, many Taliban cells are Pakistani. Afghanistan and Pakistan have been hostile to each other since the British were around. They are not united - far from it - but groups like Al Qaida and other militant Islamicists have staged a crusade out of regional rivalries and disputes. This is how the Soviets were defeated. The battle for Afghanistan in the 1980s - along with Kashmir - was the genesis of militant Islam. The West has not defeated these groups. Instead, locals have turned away from them. Al Qaida made themselves hated in Iraq. The Taliban aren't too popular either, but because they're locals they get support. The Taliban don't give out gum and stockings. They provide security. In a country torn apart by invaders, warlords and tribal rivalries, the Taliban provide a form of order. It's a brutal form of justice, but many Afghanis prefer the devil they know. Nobody wants to be ruled by religious zealots who behead people for dancing. Afghans are firstly people like all others. There is no 'Afghan nationalism', it's the Pashtun/talibs V the rest. What's going to happen after the pull out is the re-emergence of the Northern Alliance with massive Russian support. Then it depends on whether there's a US president mad enough to bleed Americans dry to support the 'military-industrial complex' or whether there's a liberal who wont want a bar of Afghanistan. In the latter case the Russians will back the NA with the Russian army and probably wont stop killing Talibs until they reach India. Great game over, USSR dead Long live the Putin Empire. :) Grey, the Northern Alliance formed to defeat the USSR. They were funded by the CIA. Has Putin got anything to do with the former satelites? You'd think he learned something from Chechnya. Still, anything's possible. I'm backing Pakistan, but you probably knew that much. I have no idea how bad the Taliban were, but many Afghanis want them back. Go figure. Afghanistan is not the West. And it is has some of the most brutal terrain in the world. The Khyber Pass is not rhyming slang for a rather dark part of the human anatomy for nothing. Many parts of Afghanistan are unreachable during Winter. Hence the success of the Northern Alliance. The US supplied them by air. The Taliban were stuck with mules. Alas, this is the future of Aghanistan after 2014.

Karnal the Khyber pass is a pass, a road. The Northern Alliance was formed after the Russian withdrawral to fight the Taliban and it's commander Massoud collected money where he could. His strongest connections were in France. The CIA funded the 'mujahideen' and operated from Pakistans tribal area. You can't support Pakistan. Pakistan is at war with itself. Which Pakistan do you support, the ISI, the government, the Taliban, Imran Khan? And support them to do what?

The Taliban are Islamofascists. Last week they beheaded 17 people for dancing. They're on a Jihad, they don't recognise borders. Russia will fight them because they have no option. Russia lost the first Chechnyan war. Yeltsin was in charge. The 2nd Chechnyan war under Putin was a resounding Russian victory. 

True, Grey, the Northern Alliance was formed to defeat the Taliban. However, it was an alliance of leaders who had previously fought the Soviets.

And yes, like the future vacuum you describe, the Northern Alliance were also from outside or from the stateless frontier areas: Tajik, Uzbek and some Hazara. They were no Pashtuns, the traditional rulers of Afghanistan - hence the elevation of Karzai.

Many of the Taliban today are also from the stateless frontier and porous border areas of Pakistan. What do you think of this dynamic? The US strategy was to attempt to establish a strong, multicultural parliament. A state. A rule of law. However, the ancient laws and alliances of Afghanistan seem compelled - as if by forces of nature itself - to destroy any idea of a state.

It's partly geographical, it's partly tribal, it's a complete lack of the most basic infrastructure. It's a lot of things. Without the most basic functions of statehood - taxes, customs, courts, police - Afghanistan will never develop. Without development, it will never be secure.

As an anarchist, what do you think of this idea?

Karnal wrote on Sep 5^th, 2012 at 12:04am:

Grey wrote on Sep 4th, 2012 at 8:31pm: Karnal wrote on Sep 4th, 2012 at 10:11am: Grey wrote on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 10:08pm: Quote: Karnal - "you cant beat an insurgency" According to Karnal every rebellion is successful. What a load of crap. What IS true is that you can't win wars - somebody has to agree to lose. Winning takes resolve, superior force and better organisation. If you have those things the other side loses, no matter who they are. We ought to have those things and if we don't we need to take a good hard look at ourselves. Not every rebellion - every conflict where you have the local population on side. In WWII, the Amerikans had chewing gum and nylon stockings. In Vietnam, the Viet Cong had rice and doctors. In Afghanistan, the Taliban have one thing: the majority of them are Afghans. For the Afghans, this is a question of nationalism. You'll never pin them down for long. They'll die defending themselves. However, many Taliban cells are Pakistani. Afghanistan and Pakistan have been hostile to each other since the British were around. They are not united - far from it - but groups like Al Qaida and other militant Islamicists have staged a crusade out of regional rivalries and disputes. This is how the Soviets were defeated. The battle for Afghanistan in the 1980s - along with Kashmir - was the genesis of militant Islam. The West has not defeated these groups. Instead, locals have turned away from them. Al Qaida made themselves hated in Iraq. The Taliban aren't too popular either, but because they're locals they get support. The Taliban don't give out gum and stockings. They provide security. In a country torn apart by invaders, warlords and tribal rivalries, the Taliban provide a form of order. It's a brutal form of justice, but many Afghanis prefer the devil they know. Nobody wants to be ruled by religious zealots who behead people for dancing. Afghans are firstly people like all others. There is no 'Afghan nationalism', it's the Pashtun/talibs V the rest. What's going to happen after the pull out is the re-emergence of the Northern Alliance with massive Russian support. Then it depends on whether there's a US president mad enough to bleed Americans dry to support the 'military-industrial complex' or whether there's a liberal who wont want a bar of Afghanistan. In the latter case the Russians will back the NA with the Russian army and probably wont stop killing Talibs until they reach India. Great game over, USSR dead Long live the Putin Empire. :) Grey, the Northern Alliance formed to defeat the USSR. They were funded by the CIA. Has Putin got anything to do with the former satelites? You'd think he learned something from Chechnya. Still, anything's possible. I'm backing Pakistan, but you probably knew that much. I have no idea how bad the Taliban were, but many Afghanis want them back. Go figure. Afghanistan is not the West. And it is has some of the most brutal terrain in the world. The Khyber Pass is not rhyming slang for a rather dark part of the human anatomy for nothing. Many parts of Afghanistan are unreachable during Winter. Hence the success of the Northern Alliance. The US supplied them by air. The Taliban were stuck with mules. Alas, this is the future of Aghanistan after 2014.

I dont understand that point.
Why are you backing Pakistan?

They are as much part of the problem as the other nations in this region.

What benefit to you guys from Australian perspective is there for you to back Pakistan?

It is not because I am a Pakistani Bastard, Avram, no. It is not because Pakistan are number one at cricket, or make marvellous linens, or cook wonderful curries for all Mother England to eat.

It is, quite simply, because Pakistan is next door to Afghanistan. There is no benefit. It is just the way things are.

The problem with people is they always look at things in their own interest. They say this is how it should be. This is what I want. This is the team I support.

But the world doesn't work that way, isn't it.

People's Republic of China is next door to Afghanistan.
So is Iran, Tajikistan too.

Are you backing these guys?

I am simply asking why you as a Aussie are backing Pakistan? I don't understand the comment or why.

But Avram, how can I back anyone? I don't have an army, and even if I did, I know they would lose.

I'm not backing Pakistan. I'm putting my money on them. Same with China. Grey says Russia - I'm not so sure.

Should we vote for our favourite political party? Or should we bet on who will win?

It is a democratik question. Before we had democraky, we had only our prayers that the next ruler would not be a tyrant.

Now we KNOW the next ruler will corrupt and useless. It is just the way things are, isn't it.

Oh I thought your comment was you supported Pakistan and wished them to succeed in the region - I couldnt understand why as a Aussie it would be a benefit to you for Pakistan to succeed.

If you think they will then that is different.

I personally do not believe a conflict in Afghanistan is winnable for anyone.

It is a hostile rough terrain - I know grey thinks it is not - but the people i listen to are people who have fought there.
I have met 2 UK soldiers who have been there. The older Russian guy who lives near my parents home in Haifa - he served in the Soviet Army and he told me it is the toughest place on earth with fearless people who frightened the Red Army.

I think the best that can be done is to make sure the ability of the Taliban to train and provide cover for terrorists who then aim to attack the Western world is the focus.

To win a war in Afghanistan is impossible, they will fight until the last person.

Technically you can win the war - but the social principles of western countries will prevent them from taking the action to do this - which is carpet bomb the country and remove the threat from the sky.

Karnal wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 10:18am:

True, Grey, the Northern Alliance was formed to defeat the Taliban. However, it was an alliance of leaders who had previously fought the Soviets. And yes, like the future vacuum you describe, the Northern Alliance were also from outside or from the stateless frontier areas: Tajik, Uzbek and some Hazara. They were no Pashtuns, the traditional rulers of Afghanistan - hence the elevation of Karzai. Many of the Taliban today are also from the stateless frontier and porous border areas of Pakistan. What do you think of this dynamic? The US strategy was to attempt to establish a strong, multicultural parliament. A state. A rule of law. However, the ancient laws and alliances of Afghanistan seem compelled - as if by forces of nature itself - to destroy any idea of a state. It's partly geographical, it's partly tribal, it's a complete lack of the most basic infrastructure. It's a lot of things. Without the most basic functions of statehood - taxes, customs, courts, police - Afghanistan will never develop. Without development, it will never be secure. As an anarchist, what do you think of this idea?

well for a start it wasn't so long ago that Germany, even England, was split geograpically and tribally into competeing fiefdoms. India too of course. That doesn't make a case for such a small 'a' anarchy (chaos) to be regarded as the default position.

America's stated objective was to defeat the lunatic Talib's and do some nation building. Having achieved its first objective it dropped the ball to go and make a war in Iraq. As you will no doubt recall America was run by an idiot at the time.

As an Anarchist (ie being concerned with the structures of  economy and power) ... Look, Anarchism comes out of defficiencies in the equations of the modern nation state. It's not applicable to the stoneage. Maybe if Anarchic principles of democracy and conflict resolution were in operation in other nations then it could be used as an example and template for Afghans to co-operate without murdering each other. But Anarchism is the future not the past.

As I've said before there's a world I'd like to live in and the world I do. There is no Anarchist manifesto, other than basic structural ideas. I personally might favour a complete halt to human expansion into the natural world or an overhaul of our criminal justice system. But those are just my personal views I'd bring to the table. But in Anarchism the table is what matters. The table is round, the chairs are equal, agreement is sacred.

Afghanistan is back in the days of church power and the church is running an inquisition that even Spanish Catholics would've found heavy handed, maybe.


Quote:

The 1578 handbook for inquisitors spelled out the purpose of inquisitorial penalties: ... quoniam punitio non refertur primo & per se in correctionem & bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, & a malis committendis avocentur. Translation from the Latin: ... for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit

I find it unconscionable to leave a population under the rule of such nutters in the modern world.

Karnal wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 12:12pm:

But Avram, how can I back anyone? I don't have an army, and even if I did, I know they would lose. I'm not backing Pakistan. I'm putting my money on them. Same with China. Grey says Russia - I'm not so sure. Should we vote for our favourite political party? Or should we bet on who will win? It is a democratik question. Before we had democraky, we had only our prayers that the next ruler would not be a tyrant. Now we KNOW the next ruler will corrupt and useless. It is just the way things are, isn't it.

I'm not backing Russia. I find the scenario I outlined 'prossible'. I would much rather the UN puts some teeth in and restored Afghanistan to the nationhood it enjoyed before the USSR and USA made it their football.

Grey wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 12:43pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 12:12pm: But Avram, how can I back anyone? I don't have an army, and even if I did, I know they would lose. I'm not backing Pakistan. I'm putting my money on them. Same with China. Grey says Russia - I'm not so sure. Should we vote for our favourite political party? Or should we bet on who will win? It is a democratik question. Before we had democraky, we had only our prayers that the next ruler would not be a tyrant. Now we KNOW the next ruler will corrupt and useless. It is just the way things are, isn't it. I'm not backing Russia. I find the scenario I outlined 'prossible'. I would much rather the UN puts some teeth in and restored Afghanistan to the nationhood it enjoyed before the USSR and USA made it their football.

it is a unwinnable hostile terrain - grey you can pour 3,000,000 men into afghanistan and the tribal leaders will send them coming back to you in body bags by thousands.

They are a formidable opponent.

I have served in the army and I am always a man who gives credit to bravery when they are on the other side and the Afghans are the most battle hard men on this world.

Yes, Avram, I agree with you. Carpet-bombing the entire country will not achieve any political or military objectives.

The Taliban WILL come to power after 2014. It does not matter if we like them or not. We will need to do business with them.

Therefore, it would make sense to deal with the Taliban as early as possible. It would make sense to pay the most friendly men in the Taliban, to bring them into the fold.

The Taliban is the vortex of military power in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, all power indeed comes from the barrel of a gun. But the Taliban is not unified. It contains ex-Mujaheddin, ex-warlords, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Pashtuns, Pakistanis, all.

And yes, it even contains friends of Karzai's.

The continued erosion of the state in Afghanistan from the exile of the king to the Soviet invasion through to the Amerikan invasion means that leadership must come from somewhere. The current parliament is just a funnel for foreign aid dollars into the hands of Karzai's friends.

Alas, the Taliban is the real source of power in Afghanistan. The trick will be to make friends and, if possible, exclude the fundamentalist knuckleheads.

Still, Australia has no regional interest in Afghanistan. Afghanistan's sponsored terror cells - the ones that are left - have little interest in Australia. Any threat to Australia comes from South East Asia, but even this is relatively minor.

The future security threats to Australia are regional food security, energy security, climate problems, and cyber attack.

Economically, we're in the region with the most economic growth in the world, so although recession is a general fear, it's not a known security threat - as it is in Africa, Europe, the US and Central America.

The War On Terror is a uniquely Amerikan phenomenon relating to their economic and waning geopolitical interests. It was a momentary distraction.

The real future threat to Australia will be the regional demand for oil and other sources of energy.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 12:53pm:

Grey wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 12:43pm: Karnal wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 12:12pm: But Avram, how can I back anyone? I don't have an army, and even if I did, I know they would lose. I'm not backing Pakistan. I'm putting my money on them. Same with China. Grey says Russia - I'm not so sure. Should we vote for our favourite political party? Or should we bet on who will win? It is a democratik question. Before we had democraky, we had only our prayers that the next ruler would not be a tyrant. Now we KNOW the next ruler will corrupt and useless. It is just the way things are, isn't it. I'm not backing Russia. I find the scenario I outlined 'prossible'. I would much rather the UN puts some teeth in and restored Afghanistan to the nationhood it enjoyed before the USSR and USA made it their football. it is a unwinnable hostile terrain - grey you can pour 3,000,000 men into afghanistan and the tribal leaders will send them coming back to you in body bags by thousands. They are a formidable opponent. I have served in the army and I am always a man who gives credit to bravery when they are on the other side and the Afghans are the most battle hard men on this world.

Always a reliable mythologist AH. Australia has lost 39 men so far, many from accidents that could've occured training in the Gibson desert, most others from those brave battle hard Talib warriors planting IRD's. Get a grip.

   
Quote:

Yes, Avram, I agree with you.

That doesn't surprise me, you are both talking tosh.

No war has ever been won by carpet bombing, because there's really no such thing. Infantry has to take and hold ground. Of course the Taliban pose no direct threat to Australian security. The Talibs are a tumour in the body of humanity. They need cutting out.

Grey wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 12:35pm:

... Look, Anarchism comes out of defficiencies in the equations of the modern nation state. It's not applicable to the stoneage.

And that's the problem here, isn't it. The difference with England and Germany and India is that all those former principalities and kingdoms united to form nations. In each case, there was a determined period of nationalism.

In economically failed states, there's little national pride, and this often creates an exodus. Either that, or civil war.

Afghanistan is not united ethnically or linguistically - this has been one of Karzai's impossible tasks: to unite a disparate people under a national banner.

This can't possibly happen without physical infrastructure such as adequate roads. You can't unite people without physical - and economic - mechanisms to do so.

Grey wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 1:11pm:

The Talibs are a tumour in the body of humanity. They need cutting out.

That's a surgical metaphor - it doesn't "cure" the source of the tumour. Cut the tumour out and a new one will grow. Before long, the whole body will be filled with cancer.

Before doctors go for surgical options, they usually try chemo or radiation therapy. There, you're trying to change the cells that cause the cancer.

Grey wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 1:11pm:

Quote: Yes, Avram, I agree with you. That doesn't surprise me, you are both talking tosh. No war has ever been won by carpet bombing, because there's really no such thing. Infantry has to take and hold ground. Of course the Taliban pose no direct threat to Australian security. The Talibs are a tumour in the body of humanity. They need cutting out.

Technically you could deliver a military victory if you wanted to deliver a weapon from the skies.

Your statement is not true - the 1945 war in the pacific was won and no US soldier went on Mainland Japan and held ground.
It was delivered from the sky.

Grey wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 1:03pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 12:53pm: Grey wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 12:43pm: Karnal wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 12:12pm: But Avram, how can I back anyone? I don't have an army, and even if I did, I know they would lose. I'm not backing Pakistan. I'm putting my money on them. Same with China. Grey says Russia - I'm not so sure. Should we vote for our favourite political party? Or should we bet on who will win? It is a democratik question. Before we had democraky, we had only our prayers that the next ruler would not be a tyrant. Now we KNOW the next ruler will corrupt and useless. It is just the way things are, isn't it. I'm not backing Russia. I find the scenario I outlined 'prossible'. I would much rather the UN puts some teeth in and restored Afghanistan to the nationhood it enjoyed before the USSR and USA made it their football. it is a unwinnable hostile terrain - grey you can pour 3,000,000 men into afghanistan and the tribal leaders will send them coming back to you in body bags by thousands. They are a formidable opponent. I have served in the army and I am always a man who gives credit to bravery when they are on the other side and the Afghans are the most battle hard men on this world. Always a reliable mythologist AH. Australia has lost 39 men so far, many from accidents that could've occured training in the Gibson desert, most others from those brave battle hard Talib warriors planting IRD's. Get a grip.

A formidable fighter is the Afghan.

You think the Red Army is a weak opponent?

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 1:47pm:

Grey wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 1:11pm:     Quote: Yes, Avram, I agree with you. That doesn't surprise me, you are both talking tosh. No war has ever been won by carpet bombing, because there's really no such thing. Infantry has to take and hold ground. Of course the Taliban pose no direct threat to Australian security. The Talibs are a tumour in the body of humanity. They need cutting out. Technically you could deliver a military victory if you wanted to deliver a weapon from the skies. Your statement is not true - the 1945 war in the pacific was won and no US soldier went on Mainland Japan and held ground. It was delivered from the sky.

You're forgetting all those atols - patches of sand men fought with their bare hands to seize.

Grey's right. No war is ever won by carpet-bombing alone. You always need boots on the ground.

Japan was in no position to surrender at the start of 1945.

The battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa showed the Americans what it would take to beat them and the Americans would lose hundreds of thousands of men in mainland Japan.

The war in Japan was won from the sky and Japan surrendered with no American in the country.

You can successfully remove threats from the sky.

I myself personally have seen us use F-16 strike eagles to remove a threat which would take us days and many men to remove.

You can remove the Afghan threats from the skies - the problem is the level of civilians deaths is not supportable in western democracy.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 1:55pm:

Japan was in no position to surrender at the start of 1945. The battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa showed the Americans what it would take to beat them and the Americans would lose hundreds of thousands of men in mainland Japan. The war in Japan was won from the sky and Japan surrendered with no American in the country.

No Amerikans in Japan in WWII?

Sure, wars have been won from the sky, but you can't fight a war that way.

Someone needs to do the mopping up.

bugger the air force. If you want a job done, send in the army.

There was no ground invasion of mainland Japan.

That battle was won by the USAF.

It wasn't 'carpet bombing' that defeated Japan. It was the display of an awesome new power. A game changer so devastating that fortunately nobody has ever been irresponsible enough to use again.

Grey wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 2:52pm:

It wasn't 'carpet bombing' that defeated Japan. It was the display of an awesome new power. A game changer so devastating that fortunately nobody has ever been irresponsible enough to use again.

Israel admits it will be irresponsible enough to use them.

Grey wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 2:52pm:

It wasn't 'carpet bombing' that defeated Japan. It was the display of an awesome new power. A game changer so devastating that fortunately nobody has ever been irresponsible enough to use again.

Tell me you dont think the USA was irrepsonsible in ending the Pacific war with this strategy.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 2:53pm:

Grey wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 2:52pm: It wasn't 'carpet bombing' that defeated Japan. It was the display of an awesome new power. A game changer so devastating that fortunately nobody has ever been irresponsible enough to use again. Israel admits it will be irresponsible enough to use them.

israel has never admitted any such thing and continues to make no comment on this subject.

Also in line with my papers signed in 2007 I will make no comment on this subject too.

Yes, friends, I also will make no comment on this subject.

Pakistan will neither confirm or deny.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 2:41pm:

There was no ground invasion of mainland Japan. That battle was won by the USAF.

Japan is no mainland, friend. Perhaps you are confuse with Pakistan.

Karnal wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 3:08pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 2:41pm: There was no ground invasion of mainland Japan. That battle was won by the USAF. Japan is no mainland, friend. Perhaps you are confuse with Pakistan.

You know what I am talking.

The main inhabited islands of Japan. No Americans invaded before the air assault on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Then Japan surrendered.

Why do you keep mentioning Pakistan? I don't understand what an Aussie has so an interest in a random country like Pakistan!

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 3:11pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 3:08pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 2:41pm: There was no ground invasion of mainland Japan. That battle was won by the USAF. Japan is no mainland, friend. Perhaps you are confuse with Pakistan. You know what I am talking. The main inhabited islands of Japan. No Americans invaded before the air assault on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Then Japan surrendered. Why do you keep mentioning Pakistan? I don't understand what an Aussie has so an interest in a random country like Pakistan!

Pakistan is not just a country, my friend. It is a spiritual homeland for many. Old boys, fundamentalists, denialists, knuckleheads, all.

You haven't heard of Okinawa? It is in Japan.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 3:11pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 3:08pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 2:41pm: There was no ground invasion of mainland Japan. That battle was won by the USAF. Japan is no mainland, friend. Perhaps you are confuse with Pakistan. You know what I am talking. The main inhabited islands of Japan. No Americans invaded before the air assault on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Then Japan surrendered. Why do you keep mentioning Pakistan? I don't understand what an Aussie has so an interest in a random country like Pakistan!

Irony - alive and well in Israel it seems.

Israelis are a great source of black humour, Grey.

Their falafel isn't too bad either.

Karnal wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 3:17pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 3:11pm: Karnal wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 3:08pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 2:41pm: There was no ground invasion of mainland Japan. That battle was won by the USAF. Japan is no mainland, friend. Perhaps you are confuse with Pakistan. You know what I am talking. The main inhabited islands of Japan. No Americans invaded before the air assault on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Then Japan surrendered. Why do you keep mentioning Pakistan? I don't understand what an Aussie has so an interest in a random country like Pakistan! Pakistan is not just a country, my friend. It is a spiritual homeland for many. Old boys, fundamentalists, denialists, knuckleheads, all. You haven't heard of Okinawa? It is in Japan.

I am not sure why you are arguing on this point. It is standard history.

The Americans used ground force to win Okinawa - the loss of soldiers life and the numbers of men needed to win this convinced the US Generals that to invaded the main part of the Japanese islands would be suicide.

They would lose hundreds of thousands of lives.

The Japanese would fight to the death and they have soldiers there ready.

So the plan was to weaken Japan from the sky to drop the bomb and then drop again.

It worked - the USA did not need to invade and Japan surrendered.

My point is you could do so technically with Afghanistan and use overwhelming power from the sky to weaken the Afghans. But you would also need to be prepared to lose civilian life too - which western countries dont do anymore.

I dont understand how this is even in dispute

It's not in dispute. I agree with you.

But your idea that Amerika and its allies could win a war in Afghanistan through air strikes alone is untested.

The US couldn't win the war in Vietnam, despite dropping more high-tech TNT than WWII.

Western powers do not have an aversion to carpet-bombing. They do so all the time - they call it "surgical strikes." Civilian deaths are called "collateral damage."

Mind you, Israel is most fond of carpet-bombing civilian populations. Apart from buying some time, what good has it done?

This is a different subject but we do not carpet bomb civilian areas.

F-16 strikes on a rocket installation is not 'carpet bombing'.

You know this though I think.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 3:37pm:

This is a different subject but we do not carpet bomb civilian areas. F-16 strikes on a rocket installation is not 'carpet bombing'. You know this though I think.

Yes, my friend, you are correct. Bombing apartment block is surgical strike on rocket installation.

You see? You are learning. I think you could have some Pakistani too, no?

Pakistan - it aint all bad :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjaH2iuoYWE

Karnal wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 3:39pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 3:37pm: This is a different subject but we do not carpet bomb civilian areas. F-16 strikes on a rocket installation is not 'carpet bombing'. You know this though I think. Yes, my friend, you are correct. Bombing apartment block is surgical strike on rocket installation.

You are a fan and devotee of the insertion of massive rockets into civilian areas, aren't you, Paki Bvgger.