are you going to reply girl?
well,my comrades gen sardworm and fw190 pilot ,please delete this topic,i fought with this stupid,but i was exceded,but them were more exceded,so i will create a new topic about malvinas.
MODs please don’t delete this thread. Lies and deception should be shown for what they are. The absolute rubbish being spouted about the Falklands War by this deluded individual is an insult to all who served in the conflict.
The cut and pasted articles which this person claims to show the huge losses and whatever else is complete and utter nonsense. The article reports that 3 chinooks were shot down - erm we only had ONE to start with - the rest went down on Atlntic Conveyor.
There is one source which most believe to be impartial namely the BBC – go and read there the truth of what happened down there back in ‘82.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2002/falklands/default.stm
For our friend in Spanish too http://www.bbc.co.uk/spanish/especiales/0203malvinas/index.shtml
You will not get away with spreading lies. Start another thread – I’ll be there too to make sure you don’t just spout fictional cr@p again - but saying something doesn’t make it true, however loud you shout it.
‘Comrades’ ?
That word’s a bit of a left-wing for a junta supporter like yourself to be using isn’t it ?
As the previous poster said, the spreading of lies or misinformation about the conflict is an insult to all who fought and died in the conflict, regardless of which side they were on.
While on the subject of insults, you have tried to wind myself or other posters up by name calling. Unfortunately this approach stopped working with most of us by the time we were in primary school.
Racism, homophobia and mysoginism are but three traits you’ve shown - please try to use some adult argument in your posts, you never know, someone may even take you half seriously.
You seem to be throwing your teddy into the corner whenever any real facts are brought up.
I imagine that this is because you realize your point of view which began as an indoctrinated rant has more holes in it than the frigate that some of the lads from Naval Party 8201 engaged from the beach.
Try to put some reasoned argument forward, merely shouting does not make something true.
But back to one of your misapprehensions, the British losses.
Tell me how you think the deaths of over one thousand men could be hidden from a democratic public ?
I fully realize the Galtieri, (please get the spelling correct,) junta that you are so keen to applaud ‘disappeared’ many people during their sojourn in office, but that isn’t the way things are done in the free world.
See if you can climb off your macho horse for long enough to answer that question in an adult manner.
ok, if you are not able to enjoy your stay in this forum and start to flame other people with offensive language, please consider not coming again, seriously, please learn how to tolerate and respsect others opinion even they might not be correct
however, i think this is an interesting topic, so i will remain this topic, hope we would have a healthy discussion from now on
I hope you are refering to our Argentinian friend with that statement FW-190? Any other possibility is just crass!!!
yes, but also to others who are not respecting other members, thanks 
sorry if i mislead you
Thanks for that. However if something is blatently lies it is only right and correct to point out the errors in that post. The only person who has resorted to bad language and dissrespect is Erwin.
Perhaps this tome will put his rants into perspective, particularly section 2.
Not trying to cause a ruckus but his grasp of the facts of that war is offensive to put it mildly.
This article has been bandied about from forum to forum. It was written by one Matt Olson and can be found at www.netalive.org/mirror/*.html
How to Write Like A *:
No matter what Flash-blinded web monkeys would have us believe, the Internet is a text-based medium: especially its major discussion forums (IRC and Usenet) where people from all over the world can interact and share information. A popular misconception about text messages on the Internet is that, to be an effective communicator and earn the respect and admiration of your peers, you must be able to write lucid prose; that your messages, articles, posts and pages must be easy to understand and pleasant to read.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Popular sites filled with cutting-edge Internet cognoscenti (such as Slashdot and ShackNews) give the lie to this harmful and destructive myth: they are brimming with horrific grammar, atrocious spelling, gratuitous abbreviation and childish, arrogant attitude. To be “in” on the net, you must write like a *.
- Structure.
Just as every house needs a foundation, every brilliantly immature net text is built on a strong structure of ignorance, sloth, and mindless misguided belligerence. You cannot afford to ignore this section.
Don’t capitalize
Hey, if it made e.e. cummings look like a visionary, surely it’ll do the same for you, right? Wrong. It makes you look like a lazy fuckwit. (Unless you demonstrate that you can use the shift key: for instance, by using characters that demand it, like double quotes. Then it makes you look like a pretentious fuckwit.) Even if you somehow manage to pull off the no-caps style with grace and flair, the best impression you will make is that of a fuckwit admirer of e.e. cummings. That puts you one up on ninety-eight percent of the Internet, but you’re still a fuckwit.
Don’t punctuate.
Sorry, that should be “Dont punctuate”. Skipping out on important punctuation—apostrophes especially—is an effective way of letting the reader know that you can’t be arsed to write properly. This gives you an opportunity to annoy your reader with poorly emphasized, amorphous run-on sentences. If you want to write like a *, you must take every chance to annoy your reader.
Apostrophes are fairly easy to deal with—just skip them entirely— but hyphens are problematic. You might use spaces instead (“African-American” becomes “African American”), but this runs the risk of correctness (many people would accept “African American” as proper usage). Unfortunately, you run the same risk by simply omitting the hyphen (“e-mail” becomes “email”). Unless you’re trying to come across as a pretentious * (see “Don’t capitalize”, above), you’re probably better off avoiding hyphenated words, and going with whatever looks least intelligent (“africanamerican”, “e mail”) when it’s unavoidable.Mispunctuate.
- up your punctuation is a conservative but effective way of exposing yourself as a retard in front of the Internet.
Pluralize with Apostrophes.
“Pluralize with Apostrophe’s.” This one small tactic is guaranteed to annoy anyone with even a passing knowledge of proper grammar. With a single keystroke, you demonstrate that you’re completely incapable of handling the simplest rule of the English language, and reduce your more capable comrades to fits of mute frustration at your wilful idiocy.Overuse Mutated Ellipses.
Never use a comma, a dash, a (semi)colon, or a period. If you absolutely must punctuate—to end what would otherwise pass for a sentence, for instance—toss in either two, or four (or more) dots as an “ellipsis”. This will come across as lazy, gutless, and flippant all at once: pure *.Overuse Exclamation and Question Marks.
Nothing shows your reader how serious you are better than five or six exclamation marks at the end of a sentence. Nothing will make your TA answer your question more quickly than a string of question marks. Bonus points for mixing the two in a question you really want answered. Extra bonus points for stuffing three or four exclamation marks into the middle of a sentence. If anything that should have been an exclamation mark actually comes out as the numeral ‘1’, you can be sure that your reader thinks you are a *.Star Out Offensive Language.
Because calling her a ‘’ would be rude, but calling her a 'cnt’ is perfectly acceptable.
Write Like You’re on IRC.
A real * considers his time infinitely more valuable than his reader’s. (You are a real *, aren’t you?) Accordingly, don’t hesitate to conserve keystrokes. Address your reader as ‘u’; ‘you’ is time-consuming and obsolete. Never ‘see’ something if you can ‘c’ it instead. Refer to groups as ‘ppl’ rather than ‘people’. Don’t put a task off until ‘later’, do it ‘l8r’. Tell your critics to ‘stfu’ instead of asking them to ‘shut the * up’. If your reader has the time to actually read the drivel you post, they surely have the time to decode your dribbling shorthand.
Don’t forget the cute misspellings. You’re a , but you * to ‘pr0n’, not ‘pornography’. Aspire to be ‘kewl’, but don’t try to be ‘cool’ except on hot summer days. Don’t neglect leetspeak, either: use the ‘0r’ form of verbs as often as possible (‘hax0r’, ‘ownz0r’, ‘wanx0r’). Replace ‘o’ with ‘0’, ‘e’ with ‘3’, ‘t’ with ‘7’, and so on. And while we’re at it, be sure to write in an exaggerated ghetto/ ebonic style if you’re obviously not black. Nothing says "wnker!" louder than James Francis Spalding III sending out ‘greetz and propz to all [his] hos and homies in da hood’.Use an Inappropriate Format.
Never send a plain-text email or make a plain-text Usenet post; send HTML instead, preferably with browser-specific extensions. If your system cracks down on such things (obviously trying to stifle your breakout creativity), use a gratuitously incompatible character set, like Shift-JIS Japanese. Or just embed SmartQuotes (which the real world interprets as VT320 control codes) in your text.
If you’re writing for the web, you’ll want to post Word documents instead of HTML, and be sure that they’re from the most recent version of Word—you wouldn’t want anyone to think that you’re behind the times (or read your work), would you? Avoid standard document formats like PDF, PostScript and even RTF like the plague: you don’t want the un-l33t masses to be able to read your work, do you?Ignore Proper Spelling and Usage.
The English language is full of homophones, for example ‘they’re’, ‘there’, and ‘their’: confuse them at every opportunity. “i hate my parents there car sux0rz…” (Note also the run-on sentence, leet-speak -0r verb form, uncapitalized ‘i’ and stunted, unwanted ellipsis.) While you’re at it, don’t forget to make glaring, obvious spelling errors: ‘reasonabel’, ‘buisness’, and ‘mesage’, for instance. (Bonus * points if you play the ESL card to explain your inability to operate a simple dictionary, though this applies more to gratuitous misspellings than—a * would use ‘then’—misuse of homonyms.)
- Style.
As one of my friends is fond of pointing out, a gratuitously bad command of the English language doesn’t necessarily indicate a fundamentally dumb text. (If nothing else, a kitten walking across a keyboard may randomly type a Zen koan.) To present yourself as a proper *, you’ll have to do better than sloppy spelling and atrocious grammar; you also have to demonstrate that you genuinely have no * clue what you’re talking about.
Make Personal Attacks
If people argue with you, the best way of refuting them is to call them ‘fags’ or ‘Nazis’. (‘Pedophile’ is rapidly gaining popularity in this regard, too.) Make up wild and false accusations against them: “Mike just got out of prison for raping puppies, so he obviously isn’t qualified to have an opinion about Unreal Tournament.” Ignore their argument and attack their credibility: “Oh yeah? Why should I listen to someone who sells heroin to kindergarteners?”
Claim False Credentials
If you’re discussing copyright law, claim to be a copyright lawyer. If you’re arguing about tobacco’s effects on one’s health, claim to be a doctor. (No matter what, claim to be a s00per 31337 h4x0r d00d: that always goes over well.) Refuse to provide any substantiating evidence, and for bonus points, grossly misuse jargon.
Make s*** Up
Are your arguments getting shot down because you can’t back them up? No problem: just pull some statistics out of your %$@ and go nuts. “Well, the crime rate goes down by 33 to 37 percent in states with gun control, so clearly pro-gun control people support mugging little old ladies.” If anyone ever asks you where you get your figures, make vague references to articles, journals, or even television programs. “I read an article in the paper a few months ago that showed the earth was only six thousand years old because carbon-dating is bogus.” When challenged, make vague references to shadowy conspiracies hiding the truth.
Another good way to make yourself look like a total * is to twist other people’s positions beyond credibility. If you’re arguing with a member of the NRA, for instance, assume that they support private ownership of main battle tanks and rebut appropriately.Cite Urban Legends
Chevy Impalas with rocket-assisted take-off packs crashing into cliffs. Tourists waking up without their kidneys in bathtubs full of ice. Swiss aerodynamicists rigorously proving that bumblebees cannot fly. Take these so-called “legends” as gospel. Remember, anything and everything you can find on Snopes is a fact … unless it has a green dot next to it.
Emphasize and Misinterpret Religion.
Trying to convert your audience to whatever religion (or sect) they’re not is a foolproof way of looking like a complete *. Be careful; if you’ve had a religious upbringing, you may accidentally take a familiar, moderate position: this is counterproductive. Insist loudly that the Bible is the literal word of God to a community of skeptics; claim that “deviants” are “going to Hell” on alt.sex ; whatever you do, remember that the best way to convert the heathens is to loudly denigrate their beliefs. Don’t actually bother learning about any of the religions you impersonate; feel free to just make ***** up.
Be sure to cite the Book of ‘Revelations’. That one always scores big * points with any Biblical scholars who happen to be watching.
Don’t forget that Wicca is synonymous with Satanism. For that matter, all religions with no concept of “the devil” are Satan-worshipping cults.Ramble
You don’t need something as limiting and backwards-thinking as a point to grace all of the IPv4 address space with your wanking writing, hell no! Start your masterwork with a skimpy rebuttal of what the last guy said, then make a fifteen paragraph digression into a dubious explanation of how quantum chromodynamics proves the existence of Atlantis.
If anyone complains that you’re off-topic, call them a Nazi.Post Non Sequiturs.
This is important: Never stay true to any local topic. If you’re posting to a newsgroup for Unix mail programs, talk about the World Series, or cute little puppies, or try to convert them all to Christianity (if they talk about daemons, they must be Satanists, right?) If you’re replying to a message-board post on Quake III, ramble on for ten paragraphs about lint from your navel.
Make Stupid Threats.
When someone takes issue with your writing, never fail to make dark h4x0rly threats about ‘0wn1ng’ their computer. Tell them you’ll “hack into their box”, plant terrorist plans and child pornography, and tip off the FBI. (This works especially well if they live in Europe.) Tell them that you and “your friends” (yeah, right) will come by and “bust a cap in [their] %$@”. (This works really well if you’re on different continents.)
Try to avoid making truly grandiose threats, like breaking into the SAC missile control computer (because, of course, it’s gotta be connected to the Internet) and turning their home town into a glowing glass parking lot. People will think that you’re being sarcastic, and might even consider you witty.Achtung!
A number of people have helpfully written (and I use the term loosely) to correct my style of quotation and punctuation: namely, “like this”, not “like this.” Now, if you limit yourself to one reference, Strunk and White claim that:
Typographical usage dictates that the comma (and presumably the period) be inside the marks, though logically it often seems not to belong there. (p.36, The Elements of Style )
This rule is apparently derived from paper typography, where the kerning of the characters does indeed look better with the comma (or period) inside the quotation marks. However, other astute readers have taken great pains to point out to me that The Web Is Not Print.
Second, another fine and respected reference – Fowler’s Modern English Usage – indicates that:
If a quoted word or phrase comes at the end of a sentence or coincides with a comma, the punctuation that belongs to the sentence as a whole is placed outside the quotation marks: What is agigabyte'? / No one shouldfollow a multitude to do evil’, as the Scripture says
Fowler’s also notes that the comma-inside-quotation-marks usage is typical of American English, which I consider an oxymoron. That makes all of you people who’ve written in to complain about my punctuation unequivocally wrong, though since it takes a reasonably technical and careful mind to notice the so-called error I won’t hold it against you.
ESR also has something to say about my punctuation style – namely, that unintended commas inside quoted strings are a counter-intuitive mutilation. This is, in fact, why I punctuate the way I do.
in my own opinion, i think causalities is not very important in this war, i think what important for the army is whether the objective is done or not. Vietiam has over 1 million causalties while the americans could hardly have 1/10 of that amount, however, north vietiam did prevail and kick the americans out of vietiam. In this war, perhaps erwin is right about the causalities, but the fact is england did complete their objective, so therefore in my opinion, england did win the war
FW-190 Pilot, was your comment directed at me or at the Erwin Schätzer “geltleman” ?
FW-190 Pilot, I posted my question before your reply to Ord Sgt had come up on my computer.
Thanks for clearing up my confusion.
First, let me say that I am not anti-British. Nor am I anti-Argentenian. I like both countries. But sometimes I like no country. It depends on their actions.
Erwin, Tex, you are correct. It was cowardly of the British to send in troops comprised of people from another nation instead of using British-born soldiers. That’s cheap, and it tells you that Britian still has it’s nose in the air thinking that it’s too good to spill it’s littly-white blood in battle if some non-English subject is willing and stupid enough to do the fighting for them. I suppose to those Gurkas, a British military salary is better than hearding goats on a hilside in their native country. At least they would get free food.
Sure nations have always used peoples of other countries to fight for them. Heck, even the Scots faught for the Swedish army in the Thirty Years War when Sweden whipped Germany, then Austria, then marched on down to Italy and whipped them too. But then, the Sotts have always been willing to fight in the service of others. Again, a military salary and food… Scotland was a poor nation until the 20th century. But so what if all that is true? The fact remains that the men Britain sent in on foot were of another race. It’s typical of Britain. They will do it every time as long as others are willing to do it for them. Even fighting the Scotts who were fighting for independance from England in the 13th century, Britain used the Irish (shame on them for going after thier sister tribe!) to fight the Scotts. It’s the same throught the history of Britain - they are the champions of this sort of thing. Only The Roman Empire rivaled Britain at it by pitting one Celtic tribe or Germanii tribe against another for Rome’s benefit.
If the United States started using such cheezy antics if it were able to, there would be a filthy stink about it here in the US. The American people would be appaled by such a thing. It would cause the president of the US to lose his next election, or worse. There would be huge protests and the US Congress would be under forced by popular opinion to change it.
As for the jets and technology, I’d say the Mirage is a better plane for dogfighting in the air. The Harrier is not a very agile plane, and a poor choice for arial combat. It is better suited for ground attack. In fact most jets are more agile than the Harrier, like the F16 (US), Jaguar (UK), Sab (Sweden), Mirage (Fr), Mig (Rus)…
If you look at the big picture however, and don’t take this personally, I don’t think Argentina stood a chance in Hades against Britain, no matter how envolved the war got or how long it might have lasted. Britain simply has too much technology, too many aggressive young men willing to go to war (um… like Gurkas???), and too much money. If the Argentinian economy were anywhere as big as Britains, I’d say they might have stood a chance in making Britain think the Faulklands were not worth what it would take to take and keep them, because Argentina’s preparedness for all-out war would have been much greater.
You can’t blame Argentina for defending the Faulklands though. I think most nations would, or would want to, if the islands in question lay not far off the coast of their mainland.
Can our argentinian friend tell me under which British government the British ordered the deportation of resident Argentinians?
I am having difficulty in finding records in Britain of the process by which the British forced Argentinian citizens from the Falkland Islands.
This may be due to our government hiding such documentation from our public, It wouldafter all be profitable for them to do so. However it is not as though the Argentine Government has been entirely truthful to its citizens. the Idea that Glatieri only waged war on terrorists is frankly laughable. If his definition of terrorists is “those that endanger my Junta’s rule” then it is possibly excusable but come back to reality and realise that the ruling right wing dictatorship was in the habit of killing memebers of its own population in order to prevent the pro-democracy movement. Argentina had a warmonger at the Helm!
Britain Won the Falklands War. This is clear to most people that view the case for war on both sides. Argentina landed troops on various British mandated territories in the southern Ocean. The purpose of this action was to take them, dominate them and hold them for the Argentine state. The purpose of this invasion had never been to bait or goad the British into a fight, Therefore to claim Britain lost because we lost troops is illogical. Argentina Lost becasue it failed in its aim to secure the island groups. Britain succeeeded because the purpose of it’s taskforce was to return the invasion force, either in boxes or on troop carriers back to Argentina. Britain completed her goal Argentina did not.
The Argentinian in this forum also claimed that the conflict had only been lost due to its three forces not acting in concert together and for having a largely conscript army. Well this is an understandable reason to loose a war. It is called; POOR MANAGEMENT, if your troops arent cohesive then they will not be as successful as if they are co-operating. This falure on the Argentines part is their own fault. Do not expect the world to regard the Argentine defeat as unfortunate, or “nearly” a victory if you cant get your military to work together.
With regards conscription, It was your own leadership that conscripted troops and sent them to the Islands, I do not expect any soldiers to fight battles against an enemy with consideration for the peacetime roll of the oppostition troops. If a man enters the field of battle carrying a rifle with the intent of killing me I will fight him. Its the best way to win a war, Im lead to believe! If my enemy is less well trained than I am, I have no sympathy for him, he still has a rifle and conscript or not he is still a threat, you should ask why your military was sending conscripts to the Islands not why the British were fighting them.
Gurkhas have a long history in the British Military, they excel in their jobs they have a mystique about their name that inspires fear in their enemies rumours about the drawing of a kukri etc only serve to put fear into the forces they may face. If you want to buy into the tales of savagery that is your own choice. if you are Scared of them before you ahve even faced them then surely you are on the back foot and the gurkhas already have the advantage. I dont beleive we use the gurkhas as cannon fodder, I may be wrong, Im not too concerned as to your opinion as you are clearly less informed than I had hoped.
Other people may read this site and ask for a more blanced view. I apologise for not having included references but internet references are known to be full of uncredited material, I believe my line of argument is cohesive and not reliant on hearsay, it is an a-priori logical argument going from accepted premises that both sides have already used.
If the Argentine want to take the Islands they will not do it militarily. The military force in the islands are not on standby- because the Argentine military never surrendered they only ran away home, technically the conflict is ongoing and thus a considerable number of troops are permanently stationed there, No longer the 20 Marines that held you outside Stanley on the morning of the invasion.
You are clearly a patriot and blindly loyal to your history, and have read the history books your state at the time allowed to be written, Your nation is undergoing a transition from economic ruin to…somwhere else and clearly issues like this will come to the surface at times of hardship. It must be remembered that your government at the time of the invasion was neither a liberal nor democratic state whereas the British were. I concede that The British educatin system may have minor discrepancies in it however I am fairly sure that authors of books that paint our government in a bad light were not “dissappeared” I wonder whether the Argentine government can claim the same thing.
Whilst you may pretend to be a soldier at weekends I really dont think you should patronise or belittle real men that give up their lives in conflict, stick to dressing up if you must (and for the most part reenactors do) but dont involve discussions or images of the nature of your last post it is offensive immature and primarily a sign on your disrespect for that which you do not understand
Actually, we sent all the leg-infantry we could get our hands on at short notice. This included 40, 42 and 45 Commandos of the Royal Marines, the 2nd and 3rd Battalion of the Parachute Regiment, the Welsh and Scots.guards, and one battalion of Gurkhas. This means something around 1/8th of the land force was made up of Gurkhas, and from memory most of the hardest fighting was done by other units (particularly Paras). The reduced level of fighting done by the Gurkhas may be something to do with the fact that the Argentine forces ran away from them shortly before they were scheduled to attack Mount William…
Hi Ironman,
I think a little more research into why different people have fought in various wars might be in order.
With respect, you obviously have limited experience and knowledge in this particular field, but you might care to ask a Ghurka why he’s joined the British or the Indian army. I think you’d be quite surprised at the answer.
Iron man wrote
“It’s the same throught the history of Britain - they are the champions of this sort of thing. Only The Roman Empire rivaled Britain at it by pitting one Celtic tribe or Germanii tribe against another for Rome’s benefit.”
“If the United States started using such cheezy antics if it were able to, there would be a filthy stink about it here in the US. The American people would be appaled by such a thing. It would cause the president of the US to lose his next election, or worse. There would be huge protests and the US Congress would be under forced by popular opinion to change it.”
Ironman are you claiming:
The US didnt arm the Mujaheddin, and later
the Northern Alliance in Afgahnistan.
Or the Northern insurgents in Iraq 2.
Or that the Southern Vietnamese werent armed in Vietnam.
Or that the Iran Iraq war wasnt a war between the US and USSR played out in a different nation.
As far as I am aware the only difference is that as well as asking people born on foreign soil to die for our State, we train them, adopt them, let them fight under our flag as soldiers not mercenaries giving them much needed legitimacy. Whereas the US “military advisors” sent straight from fort Benning without any official recognition just raise a rabble of warlords to fight and die for the benfit of the US state machinery.
I may be wrong, and I welcome a response but It seems the British are not the only “cowards” hiding behind cannon fodder borrowed from other nations.
Understand that Governments start wars and Soldiers fight them. In the long run no Government remebers who fought them regardless of whether they are your citizens or not. Victory is the aim of the government in every conflict and consequently mercenaries or “private contractors” will become involved, from which I believe the gurkhas to be entirely seperate.
For all the righteous Americans out there saying it is appaling to recruit a regiment of men from certain valleys in Nepal, Id like to add the recruitment process offers, History Culture Pride, and Respect at home and abroad Whereas the US offers a “GREEN CARD LOTTERY” Who is really being manipulated by a first world nation here then!
General, I would be very interested in your definition of ‘decent,’ please elucidate.
Ord_Sgt,Cuts and Bluffcove;you are right.i know that our argentinian friend here is a bit…reckless,shall we say?Maybe you shouldn’t take this matter too seriously;it’s not the way to treat young people like Erwin.And yes,his English isn’t that great but i saw worse cases(ever played a MMORPG?).
In the most impolite way possible, “He Started it” Both on this forum and in 82. If he was adult enough to get involved in politics at the level he chose to, and mature enough to post pictures of sinking battle ships then he can damn well be old enough to listen to (what has in all accounts been a mature and reasoned) response. I dont think anyone here has launched a personal attack agaisnt the quality of his English or the quality of his personality, we have merely let the Argie know that he is bang out of order and playing in a very big boys game when he makes claims as he does!
fair comment? If not then you can delete it! but that would be somehwat churlish bearing in mind the Drivel that he has posted.
Consider this the end of the matter from me - Unless he wants to spark off another one.
any word from Ironman?
You can justify it any way you like. Nonetheless, the British did send in a substancial number of foreing-bred men to fight for them, when tens of thousands of British solders were available to do it instead. Surely you don’t think Britain has an army of only a couple of thousand men, now do you? LOL The British had an army of tens of thousands in the 1980’s, so why did they need a few Gurkas? And were they not on the front lines? Were they those not the first to be sent into battle on foot? It’s not as if they were so short-handed that they had to have them to fight. They didn’t need them at all. Britain has the 2nd largest navy in the world behind the US. Really now. Think about it.
Oh! So it is History, Culture, Pride, and Respect for foreigners to be sent into battle on foreign land by Britain, but it is somehow dissreputible for the US to support those fighting communism and murderous dictators IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY with weapons and military advisors? What are you talking about???
I’m not claiming anything. But you seem very confused.
-
In Afghanistan right now, there are tens of thousands of US soldiers. None of those wearing a US uniform are foreigners. Not one. And in the 1980’s the Mujahheddin were fighting the Soviet Union IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY FOR THEIR OWN COUNTRY. They were not conscripts from another nation sent by the US to another nation to fight for the US.
-
Insurgents in Iraq - these are the enemy of the US, not our ally. You are confused. If you meant the US armed the Iraqis who were willing to fight the insurgents, then yes they did. Again, they were IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY FOR THEIR OWN COUNTRY. They were not conscripts from another nation sent by the US to another nation to fight for the US.
-
South Vietnamese - IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY FOR THEIR OWN COUNTRY. They were not conscripts from another nation sent by the US to another nation to fight for the US. Confusion.
-
Iran\Iraq war actually a war between Russia and the US? Holy freaking guano Batman! You are in outer space on that one. Every war faught between communists and democracy in which the US provided weapons and advisors has been a war between (here comes the shocking part) COMMUNISM AND DEMOCRACY. It does not matter who the sides are or who is supporting a side with weapons and training. Both the US and Soviet Union have provided weapons and advisors to other nations to fight each other’s ideologies. The US was not militarily involved in that war - it was not an American war. However, the Soviet Union WAS involved militaritly, and the US sent weapons and advisors to help the Afghani people fight the spread of communism there.
But let me ask you, would you rather that the enemies of the Soviets had not been supported, and communism were allowed to spread from one nation to another from 1950 to the fall of the USSR aound Asia and the Mid-East without opposition. Is that your idea of a better world? Yes, it’s easy for others to complain about US support of waring nations, but it’a also easy for those who do, it seems, to overlook the obvious fact that if the US had not done so, the following would be true:
- Several Slavic nations in Eastern Europe would have been ruled by the Soviet Union’s murderous, cruel puppet dictators in the 1980’s, and genocide would have been unchecked (yes, genocide was commited there killing tens of thousands, and when the US troops failed to stop the dictator, the US stepped in and did it).
- All of Korea would be ruled by communists, like Kim Jong Il who now has nukes and is bragging about it.
- Millions of Iraq and Afghanistani people would be ruled by murderous, cruel, evil pro-communist dictators.
- Several countries in Central America would be ruled by Soviet Union loving communist dictators, which would open the door to Soviet supported waar against South American nations.
- China would have been able to spread control of smaller nations in Asia.
- The Soviet Union would not have fallen apart because the US would not have caused it’s demise by forcing it to fight a military build-up that ultimately destroyed the Soviet economy, causing it’s collapse and the birth of democracy there.
- Cuba and other Soviet puppet nations would have nukes. They would be everywhere on the globe, and Soviet made nukes and Soviet conscript soldiers would probably be within 500 miles of every city in the free world with a population of more than 50,000.
The world would have a very different map today, and one which has a lot more RED on it.
Again, the nations that have been supported by the US with weapons and advisors were in their own country, fighting for their own country, and were not foreigners in American uniforms sent to that country to fight for the US.
Obviously, people have gone to war for other nations for the following reasons:
- They would rather have an ally against a common enemy than none
- They needed jobs
- They were forced to or face destruction by the ones offering to make take them as soldiers
- The demise of the country they chose to fight against served their greater purpose in the long run
Now what was it that I did not understand? Hmmmm.
Obviously, it’s not important why they went - a salary, the urge to kill, love for Britain, whatever. Nonetheless, Britain did send in foreigners on the front line instead of some of the tens of thousands of British soldiers. What is hard to understand about that?