Will you wear a poppy 2013?

Fratton Fred · 09-11-2013 2:00am

Seaneh wrote: »

The British Empire, spends several centuries dehumanising, subjugating, starving, raping, killing, oppressing and pillaging people on every continent of the planet and then act like the victim when they get followed home.

And what an incredibly important role the Irish played in it as well.

Maybe that's why so many Nigerians feel they have a right to be here.

Fratton Fred · 09-11-2013 2:01am

Seaneh wrote: »

You mean the US puppet government made up of former warlords and tribal leaders who the US and UK paid off to gain their support?

Because, ya know, that proves you're right in every way, altogether.

And how much did they pay the Irish government?

Seaneh · 09-11-2013 2:01am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Good for you. How cosmopolitan you must feel.

So I take it you didn't have a point at all, as usual, well done, back to the high horse so.

Gee Bag · 09-11-2013 2:04am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Oh come on, you've been shown that Ireland fully supports the war in Afghanistan and you can't handle it.

Jesus, you and others constantly refer to it as a British and US war, but there are 42 countries involved. It is UN sanctioned with a clear mandate to support the Afghan government. Other than the strength of the bad guys, there is little difference between that war and most of the missions Ireland gets involved in.

But no, it's da Brits and they is the bad guys.

Now your just trolling. Most Irish people don't know that Irish soldiers are in Afghanistan

It is primarily a US operation with a load of half-arsed hangers on. Remember the way the Yanks had to take over Helmand after ye got a kicking there?

Most Irish missions are peace keeping missions, either list the missions where Irish troops have been deployed in an offensive role or just drop it.

Fratton Fred · 09-11-2013 2:05am

Seaneh wrote: »

back to the high horse so.

You never seem to be off it to be honest.

Seaneh · 09-11-2013 2:05am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And how much did they pay the Irish government?

As has been pointed out;

Gee Bag wrote: »

1386 was passed in december 2001, after the Talliban had supposedly been vanquished and only three months after 9/11. Do you really think Ireland was going to object to the yanks going in there after what happened in New York?

Using the logic in your initial post any country that voted in favour of 1386 (which was passed unanimosly) should have sent troops, that would include
China

Russia

Colombia

Bangledesh

Jamaica

Mali

Mauritius

Singapore

Tunisia

Ukrraine

Of these Ukraine and Singapore only sent medical teams.

Is there any chance you could give us all a well deserved break and go on the equivalent of boards for the countries listed above and annoy them for a while with your interminable, meandering shlte talk?

Seaneh · 09-11-2013 2:10am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And what an incredibly important role the Irish played in it as well.

Maybe that's why so many Nigerians feel they have a right to be here.

Wow, young Irish men joined the army when faced with the choice of staying on the land and starving to death while supplying the empire with crops or 3 meals a day and a wage. The army was practically involuntary servitude given the choices at hand for Irish youth.

Fratton Fred · 09-11-2013 2:12am

Gee Bag wrote: »

Now your just trolling. Most Irish people don't know that Irish soldiers are in Afghanistan

It is primarily a US operation with a load of half-arsed hangers on. Remember the way the Yanks had to take over Helmand after ye got a kicking there?

Most Irish missions are peace keeping missions, either list the missions where Irish troops have been deployed in an offensive role or just drop it.

With the exception of the Iraq debacle, when have British troops been in an offensive role?

You can only keep the peace once peace has been created. If one side doesn't want peace, then someone has to do something about it.

WilyCoyote · 09-11-2013 2:13am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

With the exception of the Iraq debacle, when have British troops been in an offensive role?

You can only keep the peace once peace has been created. If one side doesn't want peace, then someone has to do something about it.

Like, go in an' kill um

Fratton Fred · 09-11-2013 2:15am

Seaneh wrote: »

Wow, young Irish men joined the army when faced with the choice of staying on the land and starving to death while supplying the empire with crops or 3 meals a day and a wage. The army was practically involuntary servitude given the choices at hand for Irish youth.

That's rubbish. Young Irishmen joined the army for the same reason young men joined the army the world over, a job, adventure, see the world, tradition. There was nothing particularly special about why the Irish joined up.

Gee Bag · 09-11-2013 2:16am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

With the exception of the Iraq debacle, when have British troops been in an offensive role?

You can only keep the peace once peace has been created. If one side doesn't want peace, then someone has to do something about it.

eh, the debacle in Afghanistan as we have already discussed this evening, springs to mind.

Fratton Fred · 09-11-2013 2:16am

WilyCoyote wrote: »

Like, go in an' kill um

Why do you think the ARW went in to Chad?

Fratton Fred · 09-11-2013 2:18am

Gee Bag wrote: »

eh, the debacle in Afghanistan as we have already discussed this evening, springs to mind.

It only became offensive when The Taliban started attacking.

Gee Bag · 09-11-2013 2:21am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why do you think the ARW went in to Chad?

You've got me there, they were sent to butcher the natives, rape their women and steal their resources.

Or maybe it was another peace keeping mission with a mandate to protect civilians and UN staff and ensure the delivery of aid

Seaneh · 09-11-2013 2:21am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That's rubbish. Young Irishmen joined the army for the same reason young men joined the army the world over, a job, adventure, see the world, tradition. There was nothing particularly special about why the Irish joined up.

Funny that, because my great grandfather who fought and was wounded by an artillery shell in WWI told me he only joined the british armed forces because his choices were "join up or watch my family go hungry" and cited that as the reason why everyone he know from Athlone who joined did so as well, this was repeated by a friend of his who also faught in WWI, And that was what, 100 years ago? I'd imagine that as even more magnified the further back you go.

Gee Bag · 09-11-2013 2:22am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It only became offensive when The Taliban started attacking.

What did you expect them to do? Ye invaded their country!

Seaneh · 09-11-2013 2:24am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It only became offensive when The Taliban started attacking.

That's the single stupidest thing I've read on boards in I don't know how ****ing long.

Did you expect them to welcome the invaders with open arms and thank them for dropping all their lovely "freedom bombs"?

WilyCoyote · 09-11-2013 2:28am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

With the exception of the Iraq debacle, when have British troops been in an offensive role?

You can only keep the peace once peace has been created. If one side doesn't want peace, then someone has to do something about it.

Both offensive and defensive. Offensive when they thought they would overrun with ease, defensive when they found out that they were not too welcome before breaking land speed record in withdrawal. This land speed record stood until Dunkirk!

SoulandForm · 09-11-2013 2:28am

Gee Bag wrote: »

What did you expect them to do? Ye invaded their country!

The Taliban were placed in their position of power by the Americans. You cannot compare them to FLN and the IRA.

Though I disagree with a lot of their views the Afghan Liberation Organization which fights against the Taliban and the Northern Alliance/USA is the only group worth supporting.

SoulandForm · 09-11-2013 2:32am

The Northern Alliance are in many ways worse than the Taliban;

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/dancingboys/view/

Happyman42 · 09-11-2013 2:33am

“The compulsion to do good is an innate American trait. Only North Americans seem to believe that they always should, may, and actually can choose somebody with whom to share their blessings. Ultimately this attitude leads to bombing people into the acceptance of gifts.”

The British ride shotgun on these ^ missions.

Gee Bag · 09-11-2013 2:35am

SoulandForm wrote: »

The Taliban were placed in their position of power by the Americans. You cannot compare them to FLN and the IRA.

Though I disagree with a lot of their views the Afghan Liberation Organization which fights against the Taliban and the Northern Alliance/USA is the only group worth supporting.

They weren't really put in place by the Americans. After the soviets left there was a power vacuum and civil war. After supplying vast amounts of weaponary the yanks could have stepped in to help rebuild the country, but they didn't. The Talliban rose to prominence in the mid 1990's because they gained popular support for fighting off the various war lords and restoring a semblance of order. Unfortunately for everyone they were off their fvking tits.

The Taliban of today is not really the same organisation, many of their members are ordanairy Afghans who just do not want foreigenrs occupying their country for any reason.

Seaneh · 09-11-2013 2:38am

SoulandForm wrote: »

The Northern Alliance are in many ways worse than the Taliban;

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/dancingboys/view/

You could also point to the massive increase in opiate production in US/UK controlled areas as further proof. They are allowing local tribal leaders and war lords to grow poppies and produce heroin which is then shipped to Europe and North America in return for their passive support for the N.A. controlling the regions. So much so that something like 90% of all Heroin in circulation world wide now originates in Afghanistan, mostly from N.A. Controlled areas, compared to a fraction of that before the war.

SoulandForm · 09-11-2013 2:40am

Gee Bag wrote: »

They weren't put in place by the Americans. After the soviets left there was a power vacuum and civil war. The Talliban rose to prominence in the mid 1990's because they gained popular support for fighting off the various war lords and restoring a semblance of order. Unfortunately for everyone they were off their fvking tits.

The Taliban of today is not really the same organisation, many of their members are ordanairy Afghans who just do not want foreigenrs occupying their country for any reason.

The Americans and their Saudi allies destroyed Afghanistan-and had their proxies murder or drive into exile the actual working and middle classes which is why you find so many Afghanis either living in Scandanavia or Iran. That a particular brand of their proxies took power eventually is neither here nor there.

Happyman42 · 09-11-2013 2:41am

Seaneh wrote: »

to grow poppies

There you have it!

Oiche maith

WilyCoyote · 09-11-2013 2:41am

WilyCoyote wrote: »

Both offensive and defensive. Offensive when they thought they would overrun with ease, defensive when they found out that they were not too welcome before breaking land speed record in withdrawal. This land speed record stood until Dunkirk!

To add a bit of reality to the post, here is a historical extract.

In 1843 British army chaplain G.R. Gleig wrote a memoir of the disastrous (First) Anglo-Afghan War, of which he was one of the very few survivors. He wrote that it was
a war begun for no wise purpose, carried on with a strange mixture of rashness and timidity, brought to a close after suffering and disaster, without much glory attached either to the government which directed, or the great body of troops which waged it. Not one benefit, political or military, was acquired with this war. Our eventual evacuation of the country resembled the retreat of an army defeated”.[11]

Gee Bag · 09-11-2013 2:43am

SoulandForm wrote: »

The Americans and their Saudi allies destroyed Afghanistan-and had their proxies murder or drive into exile the actual working and middle classes which is why you find so many Afghanis either living in Scandanavia or Iran. That a particular brand of their proxies took power eventually is neither here nor there.

Not really fair to blame just the yanks for that one, the soviets did more damage than any one else.

WilyCoyote · 09-11-2013 2:44am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

With the exception of the Iraq debacle, when have British troops been in an offensive role?

You can only keep the peace once peace has been created. If one side doesn't want peace, then someone has to do something about it.

Another peace keeping role in China, Fred?

The First Anglo-Chinese War (1839–42), known popularly as the First Opium War or simply the Opium War, was fought between Great Britain and China over their conflicting viewpoints on diplomatic relations, trade, and the administration of justice for foreign nationals.[3]
Prior to the conflict Chinese officials wished to end the spread of opium, and confiscated around 20,000 chests of opium (approximately 2,660,000 pounds (1,210,000 kg)[4] ) from British traders. The British government, although not officially denying China's right to control imports of the drug, objected to this seizure and used its military power to enforce violent redress.[3] Alternatively, author Glenn Melancon argues that the casus belli of the war was not opium but Britain's need to uphold its reputation, its honor, and its commitment to global free trade. In the end, says Melancon, the government's need to maintain its honor in Britain and prestige abroad forced the decision to go to war.[5]
In 1842, the Treaty of Nanking—the first of what the Chinese later called the unequal treaties—granted an indemnity to Britain, the opening of five treaty ports, and the cession of Hong Kong Island, thereby ending the trade monopoly of the Canton System. The failure of the treaty to satisfy British goals of improved trade and diplomatic relations led to the Second Opium War (1856–60).[6] The war is now considered in China as the beginning of modern Chinese history.[7][8]

SoulandForm · 09-11-2013 2:46am

Gee Bag wrote: »

Not really fair to blame just the yanks for that one, the soviets did more damage than any one else.

The Soviets held up the secular and (relatively) progressive government.

Thousands of Soviet young men and women gave their lives that Afghanistan would have some type of future worth having.

The Soviets were there because the Afghan government invited them.

Gee Bag · 09-11-2013 2:52am

SoulandForm wrote: »

The Soviets held up the secular and (relatively) progressive government.

Thousands of Soviet young men and women gave their lives that Afghanistan would have some type of future worth having.

The Soviets were there because the Afghan government invited them.

You seriously believe this?

Fred please come back!

Will you wear a poppy 2013?

Comments