Christian's did bomb this country for a while though....
Stockholm Blasts
- Thread starter Buddah
- Start date
Christian's did bomb this country for a while though....
Because he is the one that always posts news articles on GD and doesn't say anything about it or give any opinion.
I think Fox had a go at him the other week.
Never seen that. But hey, someone else said it sometime so let's get some pitchforks!
Never seen that. But hey, someone else said it sometime so let's get some pitchforks!
or just click his name and view threads..
When was the last time you heard about a Christian emigrating to a Muslim country full stop? Unless they are going to hand out food aid and build houses for them.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 28,140
- Location
- Liverpool
Then if that is an important reason, why not go for far more oppressive regimes whose societies are far worse than the going ons of the Middle East/Afghan? If we can't 'help' them all then shouldn't go for the worst?
Can you "win" those wars though?
A lot of the African places just don't have the infrastructure to ever train up a police/army and seat a government after the war without several decades of occupation.
They didn't emigrate.
I have a Frankie Boyle level of bad taste joke about them not coming back... but, uh, yeah.
They didn't emigrate.
This, come here, use the NHS to have kids plus all the other perks of living in a democracy then try to blow it up.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 28,140
- Location
- Liverpool
But then if citing humanitarian reasons then any conflict should be based on saving as many lives as possible; it's irrelevant how hard the task will be.
My point above is that it was annoying to hear this reason, which seemingly didn't bother us before hand, being used during the planning stages earlier on in last decade. That's why I said it felt it was being scraped from the bottom of the barrel. I suppose we should be grateful it was at least true.
Yes, because the millions coming to this country are clearly blowing spit up.
Oh snap! People! I just looked out the window and this immigrant tried to blow something up!
OH NO THERE IS ANOTHER ONE!
Obvious Fail Troll is Obvious.
But then if citing humanitarian reasons then any conflict should be based on saving as many lives as possible; it's irrelevant how hard the task will be.
My point above is that it was annoying to hear this reason, which seemingly didn't bother us before hand, being used during the planning stages earlier on in last decade. That's why I said it felt it was being scraped from the bottom of the barrel. I suppose we should be grateful it was at least true.
but if you can't train a police force and army and put a government in place the war will likely cost far more lives than leaving them alone.
Iraq showed what happens when you take a mainly civilized country and remove control doing it in some place held under the iron fist of a warlord and full of old conflicts and bad blood is going to make a much worse civil war.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 28,140
- Location
- Liverpool
-Does that always apply though? Perhaps it's not the only solution. Were we even sure before hand that we could enforce a government? I can see your point in Africa whereby neighbours can be just as bad as each other. But what e.g. about N Korea?
-Aye, agree with that. Even the Yanks said after the first Gulf War, they weren't too concerned with Saddam Hussain. He kept the country fairly together.
-Aye, agree with that. Even the Yanks said after the first Gulf War, they weren't too concerned with Saddam Hussain. He kept the country fairly together.
Nk would be interesting to see tbh.
On one hand the almost immediate flood of food and medical aid that could be brought in could win massive favour with the people combined with lifting of embargoes but are they so, i hate to use the word but, brainwashed into thinking their leader is right they'd fight until the end?
But then again NK actually has nukes so could destroy a large part of the attacking army or it could be smuggled out beforehand and end up in new york/ some other port city well after the war has ended.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 428
Have you ever considered the view that it isn't actually your right to claim that another nation's way of life is 'wrong' and then invade to impose your own on it? Maybe you should think about who is actually brainwashed.
Is it kim's right to starve his people to death, and deny them many freedoms?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 428
You need to think about how much of what you read is exaggerated. Communism isn't as evil as it is made out to be, NK isn't as evil, Iran isnt as evil, and our scoiety isn't anywhere near as 'free' as it is made out to be. Infact I would say Iran is more honest with its population than any western government.
There seems to be a general smugness and conceit prevalent in the West since the collapse of the Soviet Union. It's like an arrogant belief that western economies/societies triumphed due to their perfectly efficient markets; our wisdom has been vindicated; ours is the one true way. It is not.
There seems to be a general smugness and conceit prevalent in the West since the collapse of the Soviet Union. It's like an arrogant belief that western economies/societies triumphed due to their perfectly efficient markets; our wisdom has been vindicated; ours is the one true way. It is not.
