|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 13:52:08 GMT
well its begun and about fukinjh time! some thing needed to be done and you can trust the yanksto do get stuck in when ther is a danger to there security. SHame on UK for not standing up to these scummers taking BRitish hostages - soft as shit this counrty these days!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 14:50:48 GMT
well its begun and about fukinjh time! some thing needed to be done and you can trust the yanksto do get stuck in when ther is a danger to there security. SHame on UK for not standing up to these scummers taking BRitish hostages - soft as shit this counrty these days! I'm sure before much longer Britain will take part , Cameron will need to be certain that he has Millibands backing this time before going ahead .....remember last year when Milliband renegaded on his support for strikes against Assad .....he was humiliated when he was forced to backtrack after pledging support to the US
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 15:17:39 GMT
I hope so mate its abit embrassaing to be uming and arring when the cunters have uK hostages and we left the job half done in Iraq !
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 15:48:16 GMT
I hope so mate its abit embrassaing to be uming and arring when the cunters have uK hostages and we left the job half done in Iraq ! what do you mean half done? 1)they got rid of Saddam (despite having supported him for years previously) 2) they appeased millions of Americans who foolishly believed that the invasion of Iraq actually DID have something to do with the "War on terror" (which in reality was a soundbite PR title originally invented so they could group it all into September 11th and then the US public could think they'd taken some kind of revenge for what happened when in reality the 2 things had sod all to do with each other) 3) they crippled Iraq's oil industry ensuring they couldn't rebuild any decent military force again or be a major economic player at any point in the future (over $8.8 billion of oil revenues from Iraqi oil is still "unaccounted for" during the period that the US had control over the oil profits and "promised to spend it wisely" directly after the invasion. they are also still only producing 2 million barrels per day despite US assurances that within months of the invasion it would be back to over 3.5mill per day and guarantees that it would be above 6 mill per day within "a few years") as far as the US are concerned, i'd say they pretty much carried out 100% of their original objectives.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 16:12:49 GMT
I hope so mate its abit embrassaing to be uming and arring when the cunters have uK hostages and we left the job half done in Iraq ! what do you mean half done? 1)they got rid of Saddam (despite having supported him for years previously) 2) they appeased millions of Americans who foolishly believed that the invasion of Iraq actually DID have something to do with the "War on terror" (which in reality was a soundbite PR title originally invented so they could group it all into September 11th and then the US public could think they'd taken some kind of revenge for what happened when in reality the 2 things had sod all to do with each other) 3) they crippled Iraq's oil industry ensuring they couldn't rebuild any decent military force again or be a major economic player at any point in the future (over $8.8 billion of oil revenues from Iraqi oil is still "unaccounted for" during the period that the US had control over the oil profits and "promised to spend it wisely" directly after the invasion. they are also still only producing 2 million barrels per day despite US assurances that within months of the invasion it would be back to over 3.5mill per day and guarantees that it would be above 6 mill per day within "a few years") as far as the US are concerned, i'd say they pretty much carried out 100% of their original objectives. i mean half done like We went in the middle East to make it safer and then soded of before suceding! dont buy all the conspircy theary stuff think We invaded to nacker Sad dam nowt more. he did not haver wmd's but needed to go any way!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 16:23:57 GMT
what do you mean half done? 1)they got rid of Saddam (despite having supported him for years previously) 2) they appeased millions of Americans who foolishly believed that the invasion of Iraq actually DID have something to do with the "War on terror" (which in reality was a soundbite PR title originally invented so they could group it all into September 11th and then the US public could think they'd taken some kind of revenge for what happened when in reality the 2 things had sod all to do with each other) 3) they crippled Iraq's oil industry ensuring they couldn't rebuild any decent military force again or be a major economic player at any point in the future (over $8.8 billion of oil revenues from Iraqi oil is still "unaccounted for" during the period that the US had control over the oil profits and "promised to spend it wisely" directly after the invasion. they are also still only producing 2 million barrels per day despite US assurances that within months of the invasion it would be back to over 3.5mill per day and guarantees that it would be above 6 mill per day within "a few years") as far as the US are concerned, i'd say they pretty much carried out 100% of their original objectives. i mean half done like We went in the middle East to make it safer and then soded of before suceding! dont buy all the conspircy theary stuff think We invaded to nacker Sad dam nowt more. he did not haver wmd's but needed to go any way! i'd hardly say it's a conspiracy theory mate. very few people genuinely believe the US went in to help out the people of Iraq...one hell of a coincidence it all happened so quickly after 9/11 don't you think? and the fact the US military were saying at the time that AQ needed to pay for what happened so they were looking forward to doling out some punishment to Saddam despite him not being involved in 9/11 at all. it was all US spin on the US public to get them to buy into the "We're doing this for the memory of the 9/11 victims" which is why they labelled it a "War on terror" because they couldn't lump them together otherwise so they needed a vague title to tie it all in as one thing. i agree that Saddam had to go but don't believe for one second that the US did it out of the good of their hearts.....they hadn't bothered to do it before 9/11 had they? completely agree with you 100% though in that whatever reason people went in for, we screwed up their country and just left without tidying up after ourselves and that's a wrong that definitely needs righting
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 17:28:22 GMT
i mean half done like We went in the middle East to make it safer and then soded of before suceding! dont buy all the conspircy theary stuff think We invaded to nacker Sad dam nowt more. he did not haver wmd's but needed to go any way! i'd hardly say it's a conspiracy theory mate. very few people genuinely believe the US went in to help out the people of Iraq...one hell of a coincidence it all happened so quickly after 9/11 don't you think? and the fact the US military were saying at the time that AQ needed to pay for what happened so they were looking forward to doling out some punishment to Saddam despite him not being involved in 9/11 at all. it was all US spin on the US public to get them to buy into the "We're doing this for the memory of the 9/11 victims" which is why they labelled it a "War on terror" because they couldn't lump them together otherwise so they needed a vague title to tie it all in as one thing. i agree that Saddam had to go but don't believe for one second that the US did it out of the good of their hearts.....they hadn't bothered to do it before 9/11 had they? completely agree with you 100% though in that whatever reason people went in for, we screwed up their country and just left without tidying up after ourselves and that's a wrong that definitely needs righting thing is tho Mate the 8 bilion bucks of oil you say went mising - well the war its self cost way more than that so why wud the yanks spend trillions to get bilions back makes no sense ? cudnt invade befor 911 as evry day ppl wud never have agreed it - 911 woke everone up.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 18:36:37 GMT
Fuck sake lads 9/11th appended wether we like it or not, just just cant stand by and do nothing.we have our very own militants who have been brainwashed into beleiving if you are not a muslim you deserve to die.i am glad the us are acting as the world police we would be fucked without them.i notice that those isis cunts are nearing the turkish border, whats next and where the fuck are they getting their money from?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 22:00:24 GMT
Fuck sake lads 9/11th appended wether we like it or not, just just cant stand by and do nothing.we have our very own militants who have been brainwashed into beleiving if you are not a muslim you deserve to die.i am glad the us are acting as the world police we would be fucked without them.i notice that those isis cunts are nearing the turkish border, whats next and where the fuck are they getting their money from? Agree entirely mate
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 22:08:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 22:39:35 GMT
It does indeed mumf , but it can only do so much damage to their infrastructure , I think that to eradicate them completely will definately entail a campaign on the ground , the powers that be ( US, UK and others ) know this , however unpalatable this may seem given recent activities in Iraq and Afghanistan ....it will be the only way
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Sept 23, 2014 22:43:41 GMT
Suprised allahsleftfoot and starkiller haven't spewed their cretinous bollocks onto this thread yet.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 22:46:08 GMT
They can't hide in sand dunes , but being the cowards that they are , they simply hide and mingle in occupied towns and villages using the locals as human shields. I suppose forces on the ground is inevitable , but that should be decided at a much later date. We can keep them pinned down in the meantime in a war of attrition . Once they move out , then that's the time to nail the bastuurds.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 22:48:09 GMT
Suprised allahsleftfoot and starkiller haven't spewed their cretinous bollocks onto this thread yet. The night is young ....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 22:54:28 GMT
They can't hide in sand dunes , but being the cowards that they are , they simply hide and mingle in occupied towns and villages using the locals as human shields. I suppose forces on the ground is inevitable , but that should be decided at a much later date. We can keep them pinned down in the meantime in a war of attrition . Once they move out , then that's the time to nail the bastuurds. Yes , that's good strategy , keep whittling away at them through air strikes .....it will have a major effect on them , no matter how many their numbers are ....keep killing enough of them and it will have an effect , even though they may be fanatics ....cause enough disruption and destruction amongst them , and then when the time is right go in on the ground and smash them ....this is the way it will have to be done , no matter how distasteful it may be to some
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Sept 23, 2014 23:01:28 GMT
Suprised allahsleftfoot and starkiller haven't spewed their cretinous bollocks onto this thread yet. The night is young .... Attachment DeletedStarkiller: "I'm sane and so is my unicorn."
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 23:03:24 GMT
The night is young .... View AttachmentStarkiller: "I'm sane and so is my unicorn." I'll take his word on that one ......on second thoughts ?
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Sept 23, 2014 23:12:38 GMT
Allahsleftfoot is watching a bit of girl on girl action, he'll be with us shortly. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by californiaphil on Sept 24, 2014 3:45:11 GMT
well its begun and about fukinjh time! some thing needed to be done and you can trust the yanksto do get stuck in when ther is a danger to there security. SHame on UK for not standing up to these scummers taking BRitish hostages - soft as shit this counrty these days! For me, the English were the only ones besides us willing to spill blood for Iraq. That being said, Americans right now don't want another trillion dollar war (and believe me, I know about the conspiracy theories!). But, I don't think anyone is against using some drones or airstrikes. (Obama signs executive orders for those with glee.) Sadly, when this whole ISIS thing broke out, our military said they didn't know who to blow up because they couldn't tell one set of Muslim militants from the next.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Sept 24, 2014 5:53:32 GMT
They can't hide in sand dunes , but being the cowards that they are , they simply hide and mingle in occupied towns and villages using the locals as human shields. I suppose forces on the ground is inevitable , but that should be decided at a much later date. We can keep them pinned down in the meantime in a war of attrition . Once they move out , then that's the time to nail the bastuurds. Yes , that's good strategy , keep whittling away at them through air strikes .....it will have a major effect on them , no matter how many their numbers are ....keep killing enough of them and it will have an effect , even though they may be fanatics ....cause enough disruption and destruction amongst them , and then when the time is right go in on the ground and smash them ....this is the way it will have to be done , no matter how distasteful it may be to some This approach doesn't work! Overwhelming military force does not succeed in asymmetric warfare. Been shown time and time again. But the West - specifically the US (aided by its faithful lackey the UK) - carry on regardless. The only way to a solution is through negotiation. Unfortunately, the belligerents always, at the start of any conflict, present the enemy as someone so evil that negotiation is impossible. However, after many lives have been lost, money spent and absolutely zero progress made, negotiations suddenly become possible. Sadly we seem unable to bypass step one of this process. It's the same old song...
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Sept 24, 2014 6:56:45 GMT
well its begun and about fukinjh time! some thing needed to be done and you can trust the yanksto do get stuck in when ther is a danger to there security. SHame on UK for not standing up to these scummers taking BRitish hostages - soft as shit this counrty these days! What's with the hyroglifics & capital letters!?! They don't like it up'em!!!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2014 7:38:36 GMT
Yes , that's good strategy , keep whittling away at them through air strikes .....it will have a major effect on them , no matter how many their numbers are ....keep killing enough of them and it will have an effect , even though they may be fanatics ....cause enough disruption and destruction amongst them , and then when the time is right go in on the ground and smash them ....this is the way it will have to be done , no matter how distasteful it may be to some This approach doesn't work! Overwhelming military force does not succeed in asymmetric warfare. Been shown time and time again. But the West - specifically the US (aided by its faithful lackey the UK) - carry on regardless. The only way to a solution is through negotiation. Unfortunately, the belligerents always, at the start of any conflict, present the enemy as someone so evil that negotiation is impossible. However, after many lives have been lost, money spent and absolutely zero progress made, negotiations suddenly become possible. Sadly we seem unable to bypass step one of this process. It's the same old song... It does work. Dead men don't pull triggers. It's worked in every conflict it's been employed in . It is 100% effective no matter what the flavour of Fuzzy. Lets start with Iraq...Yes... Afghanistan ....Yes Libya.....Yes. Israel.....Yes.. Just because there are thousands of fuzzies prepared to pick up a Kalashnikov for the cause , don't ever assume that there isn't enough bullets or drones to kill them....because there is. It worked in the assassination of Bin Laden and scores of other Al Quaeda operatives around the globe. Trying to rewrite history or facts doesn't work. Negotiation with Isis is a none runner.... A non runner that will never happen . They will get blasted to hell by any number of government armies involved . A Toyota Hilux with an automatic machine gun and three fuzzies on the back just doesn't cut it it I'm afraid . Obviously , there will be others prepared to take up arms from places like , Bradford , Burnley , Oldham , Luton etc , but this is why we should stay vigilant and committed to wipe out such threats by whatever means we can. We could always try changing 'signing on' day first I suppose.....
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Sept 24, 2014 7:45:59 GMT
Suprised allahsleftfoot and starkiller haven't spewed their cretinous bollocks onto this thread yet. No mate you're doing a perfectly good job yourself...
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 24, 2014 8:33:51 GMT
Yes , that's good strategy , keep whittling away at them through air strikes .....it will have a major effect on them , no matter how many their numbers are ....keep killing enough of them and it will have an effect , even though they may be fanatics ....cause enough disruption and destruction amongst them , and then when the time is right go in on the ground and smash them ....this is the way it will have to be done , no matter how distasteful it may be to some This approach doesn't work! Overwhelming military force does not succeed in asymmetric warfare. Been shown time and time again. But the West - specifically the US (aided by its faithful lackey the UK) - carry on regardless. The only way to a solution is through negotiation. Unfortunately, the belligerents always, at the start of any conflict, present the enemy as someone so evil that negotiation is impossible. However, after many lives have been lost, money spent and absolutely zero progress made, negotiations suddenly become possible. Sadly we seem unable to bypass step one of this process. It's the same old song... its a tough one becuase negotiation doesnt work with these people. There again neither does bombing A quandry
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Sept 24, 2014 8:48:27 GMT
Suprised allahsleftfoot and starkiller haven't spewed their cretinous bollocks onto this thread yet. No mate you're doing a perfectly good job yourself... Of course I am. Oh, and I'm not your mate
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Sept 24, 2014 10:06:11 GMT
No mate you're doing a perfectly good job yourself... Of course I am. Oh, and I'm not your mate We're all mates on here aren't we? Or does your prejudice exclude you from friendly debate?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2014 10:35:01 GMT
Yes , that's good strategy , keep whittling away at them through air strikes .....it will have a major effect on them , no matter how many their numbers are ....keep killing enough of them and it will have an effect , even though they may be fanatics ....cause enough disruption and destruction amongst them , and then when the time is right go in on the ground and smash them ....this is the way it will have to be done , no matter how distasteful it may be to some This approach doesn't work! Overwhelming military force does not succeed in asymmetric warfare. Been shown time and time again. But the West - specifically the US (aided by its faithful lackey the UK) - carry on regardless. The only way to a solution is through negotiation. Unfortunately, the belligerents always, at the start of any conflict, present the enemy as someone so evil that negotiation is impossible. However, after many lives have been lost, money spent and absolutely zero progress made, negotiations suddenly become possible. Sadly we seem unable to bypass step one of this process. It's the same old song... I agree with you about asymmetric warfare , but in this instance overwhelming military force as you put it can be effective ......it depends what the aim of the west and its allies in the region are ? I would think that it's to prevent IS from growing from nothing into a potent force that threatens to encompass the whole region ....and beyond , that can be and will be achieved militarily without a doubt .....the problems arising out of that are something else that we will have to live with and deal with ....no amount of negotiating with these people is going to end this problem I'm sorry to say , you may calm he situation somewhat by talking ,but it's never going to go away
|
|
|
Post by elsidibe on Sept 24, 2014 11:48:49 GMT
well its begun and about fukinjh time! some thing needed to be done and you can trust the yanksto do get stuck in when ther is a danger to there security. SHame on UK for not standing up to these scummers taking BRitish hostages - soft as shit this counrty these days! What's with the hyroglifics & capital letters!?! They don't like it up'em!!! He demonstrates that anyone who sees the world in such simplistic terms must be illiterate in all sorts of ways.
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Sept 24, 2014 12:27:18 GMT
The News
"In accordance to the principles of Doublethink, it does not matter if the war is not real, or when it is, that victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continuous. The essential act of modern warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labor. A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. In principle, the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects. And its object is not victory over Eurasia or Eastasia, but to keep the very structure of society intact."
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2014 15:21:54 GMT
The News "In accordance to the principles of Doublethink, it does not matter if the war is not real, or when it is, that victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continuous. The essential act of modern warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labor. A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. In principle, the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects. And its object is not victory over Eurasia or Eastasia, but to keep the very structure of society intact." i presume you're aware that that is based on a book..it's not a documentary
|
|