Why do our soldiers have to go to Afghanistan?

[tab1]

Just what has the fact of him being a soldier got to do with anything.

 

You may very well disagree with him but you do your standpoint no favours by resorting to childish insults based on the term 'soldier'.

If he is ashamed of being called a soldier then why make the point of advertising it on open forum to somehow emphasise he has more authority on subject. Clearly he has a right to hold any opinion but has when using his being an ex soldier to justify and excuse murder of civilians, his being a soldier will have to be taken account of, in my opinion. I think you will find my insults to general Monty here have been no more childish than his to me for merely opposing him and being a Muslim.

 

I find it surprising however why instead of replying to the excellent post by Smithster, you choose to ignore the points made there and find it more important to lend a hand to soldier boy by lecturing me. Why not post on topic and answer the relevant posts above so that we may hold discussion on why are we still in Afghanistan. Needless to say I agree with Smithster's analysis of the situation, what say you?

[tab1]

Pay no attention to him. He's demented. I anticipate that he will soon rip his keyboard in two and attempt to flush it down the toilet.

Another excellent contribution by our resident full of threats soldier boy, well done Monty!! You live up to my estimation of you

[Harleyman]

 

Not strictly true as Germany has played quite an active role in the conflict. Although their troops are not actively engaging any enemy fighters and they are on more of a peace-keeping mission in areas not heavily affected by the Taleban insurgency. But Germany took responsibility for training the newly-formed Afghan police force after Hamid Karzai's completely ineffectual government was installed.

 

Not sure about the French though. It's widely known they did not want to get involved in Iraq but I think they have a few thousand troops in Afghanistan.

 

I wondered about the French ans German involvement since I'v heard nothing about casualties amongst these two forces.

Why German troops are acting in the role of peace keeping is a bit of a mystery. World War 2 and the SS are part of ancient history so if this policy of a non-combat role is some kind of "conscience thing" then it's misplaced.

[JFKvsNixon]

Why German troops are acting in the role of peace keeping is a bit of a mystery. World War 2 and the SS are part of ancient history so if this policy of a non-combat role is some kind of "conscience thing" then it's misplaced.

 

Germanys continued attempts of attaining European dominance by force is very far from being ancient history, to both Germans and other nationalities. And as such it is part of Germany's Constitution (Art. 87a) that their armed forces are defensive in nature only, although the term "defence" has been defined to not only include protection of the borders of Germany. I think that Japan has a similar clause in their constitution.

 

Edit:

 

Here are the foreign operations that the Bundeswehr have been involved:

 

Afghanistan

ISAF

4,520 personnel

(mandate limit: 5,350)

 

Kosovo

KFOR

2,050 personnel

(mandate limit: 8,500)

 

Bosnia and Herzegovina

EUFOR (former SFOR)

130 personnel

(mandate limit: 2,404

since 2 December 2004 under European Union Command

 

Horn of Africa/Indian Ocean

Operation Enduring Freedom

Operation Atalanta

325 personnel

(mandate limit 2,800 personnel)

 

Sudan

UNMIS

31 personnel

(no mandate limit)

 

Coast of Lebanon

UNIFIL II

230 personnel

(mandate limit: 2,400)

ATALANTA

660 personnel

[Harleyman]

Germanys continued attempts of attaining European dominance by force is very far from being ancient history, to both Germans and other nationalities. And as such it is part of Germany's Constitution (Art. 87a) that their armed forces are defensive in nature only, although the term "defence" has been defined to not only include protection of the borders of Germany. I think that Japan has a similar clause in their constitution.

 

Edit:

 

Here are the foreign operations that the Bundeswehr have been involved:

 

Afghanistan

ISAF

4,520 personnel

(mandate limit: 5,350)

 

Kosovo

KFOR

2,050 personnel

(mandate limit: 8,500)

 

Bosnia and Herzegovina

EUFOR (former SFOR)

130 personnel

(mandate limit: 2,404

since 2 December 2004 under European Union Command

 

Horn of Africa/Indian Ocean

Operation Enduring Freedom

Operation Atalanta

325 personnel

(mandate limit 2,800 personnel)

 

Sudan

UNMIS

31 personnel

(no mandate limit)

 

Coast of Lebanon

UNIFIL II

230 personnel

(mandate limit: 2,400)

ATALANTA

660 personnel

 

 

I think some Germans and Europeans in general are overly obsessed with Germany's past considering that 76 years have passed and they're now into the third and fourth generations since those days. The old German- Prussian mentality is dead, gone and extinct along with war manufacturing entities such as Krupps. They are more likely to want to achieve some kind of economic dominance just as the US, China, Russia and Japan aim for the same goals and there's nothing really wrong with that.

 

Too bad the US could not have adopted a similar Constitution after the Berlin Wall came down and the Cold War ended, the disbandment of NATO and US troops returned home but the advent of terrorism prevented that and after 9/11. the concern about Saddam selling WMDs to terrorists and the Talibans refusal to hand over members of Al Qaeda led to Iraq and Afganistan. In the long run some kind of peace is going to have to be made with the Taliban even if it means their eventual return to power. This will be unfortunate for Afghan women but trying to change a cultural mindeset about the place of women in Afghan society that predates back a thousand years or more is an impossibility.

 

As far as Japan adopting the defence only policy like that of Germany it

's apparent that the country will have to revise their way of thinking in light of North Korea and China. They will have to start spending some of their accumulated riches in building and maintaining much more than the token defence force that they now have.

[Zaytsev]

If he is ashamed of being called a soldier then why make the point of advertising it on open forum to somehow emphasise he has more authority on subject. Clearly he has a right to hold any opinion but has when using his being an ex soldier to justify and excuse murder of civilians, his being a soldier will have to be taken account of, in my opinion. I think you will find my insults to general Monty here have been no more childish than his to me for merely opposing him and being a Muslim.

 

I find it surprising however why instead of replying to the excellent post by Smithster, you choose to ignore the points made there and find it more important to lend a hand to soldier boy by lecturing me. Why not post on topic and answer the relevant posts above so that we may hold discussion on why are we still in Afghanistan. Needless to say I agree with Smithster's analysis of the situation, what say you?

 

OK, can I call you Muslim boy and Abdul as a catch all terms rather like your 'soldier boy' and 'Monty'.

[Harleyman]

OK, can I call you Muslim boy and Abdul as a catch all terms rather like your 'soldier boy' and 'Monty'.

 

 

According to the sacred doctrine of tab1 the names "soldier boy" and "Monty" are acceptable forms of address along with his favorites "barsteward Yanks"

You can no doubt guess what swear word "barsteward" substitutes for

 

However addressing him as Muslim Boy or Abdul is blatant outright derogatory and racist according to his standards

[tab1]

According to the sacred doctrine of tab1 the names "soldier boy" and "Monty" are acceptable forms of address along with his favorites "barsteward Yanks"

You can no doubt guess what swear word "barsteward" substitutes for

 

However addressing him as Muslim Boy or Abdul is blatant outright derogatory and racist according to his standards

My standards are to detest murderers and their apologists. I never supported anything as vile as killing innocent people, but Monty here does and indeed I stand by the words I used to describe the despicable cowards shooting up civilians and their equally despicable apologists. The people referred to have fallen well below standards of common decency and as such I have given my reasons for using the words.

 

If you can prove I have supported such acts as murder or justified or perhaps excused terrorism because it was carried out by Muslims then you would be in your right to critisise me, I don't keep double standards, you do. To claim their are no bad people in the American army is blinkered and when we see something bad then regardless of who it is, we should have the guts to speak up against it. So far no evidence of that from Monty here who instead goes in for telling us that because we haven't been in the army we have no right to critisise it. We all have the right to hold opinion on what we see as wrong whether Monty or his supporters like it or not.

[tab1]

OK, can I call you Muslim boy and Abdul as a catch all terms rather like your 'soldier boy' and 'Monty'.

Any reason for doing that? Or are you just showing solidarity so that you can help take the thread off topic and our soldier boy doesn't have to answer difficult questions on the abhorrent views he holds? Indeed I am a Muslim and never have I pushed my religion onto others and told them they have no right to discuss Islam because they are not Muslims. I have instead engaged and tried to explain best I could the Muslims perspective on many an issue on here. The soldier boy however has sought to use his being in the army to brow beat anyone disagreeing with his world view, but hey it's an open forum and if you wish to join in to prove your credentials and call names for no apparent reason other than seeing your mate embarrassed, backtracking and unable to post on topic, then now is your chance, go for it.

As for Abdul I wasn't aware that is a catch all term but again if in your experience all Muslims are called Abdul then so be it, you'll just be displaying how much or maybe how little you know. Look forward to your contribution to this thread, if only to see how far you can take it off topic in order to help your mate from answering difficult questions.

[Zaytsev]

Any reason for doing that? Or are you just showing solidarity so that you can help take the thread off topic and our soldier boy doesn't have to answer difficult questions on the abhorrent views he holds? Indeed I am a Muslim and never have I pushed my religion onto others and told them they have no right to discuss Islam because they are not Muslims. I have instead engaged and tried to explain best I could the Muslims perspective on many an issue on here. The soldier boy however has sought to use his being in the army to brow beat anyone disagreeing with his world view, but hey it's an open forum and if you wish to join in to prove your credentials and call names for no apparent reason other than seeing your mate embarrassed, backtracking and unable to post on topic, then now is your chance, go for it.

As for Abdul I wasn't aware that is a catch all term but again if in your experience all Muslims are called Abdul then so be it, you'll just be displaying how much or maybe how little you know. Look forward to your contribution to this thread, if only to see how far you can take it off topic in order to help your mate from answering difficult questions.

 

Any reason for doing that? Or are you just showing solidarity so that you can help take the thread off topic and our muslim boy doesn't have to answer difficult questions on the abhorrent views he holds? Indeed I am a Soldier and never have I pushed my occupation onto others and told them they have no right to discuss the armed forces because they are not Soldiers. I have instead engaged and tried to explain best I could the Soldiers perspective on many an issue on here. The muslim boy however has sought to use his being in the Islamic faith to brow beat anyone disagreeing with his world view, but hey it's an open forum and if you wish to join in to prove your credentials and call names for no apparent reason other than seeing your mate embarrassed, backtracking and unable to post on topic, then now is your chance, go for it.

As for Monty I wasn't aware that is a catch all term but again if in your experience all Soldiers are called Monty then so be it, you'll just be displaying how much or maybe how little you know. Look forward to your contribution to this thread, if only to see how far you can take it off topic in order to help your mate from answering difficult questions.

 

I think that makes my position clear and reinforces my view that your childish references to 'soldier boy' and 'Monty' are the product of an infantile mind and shows a total lack of respect for the men and women who have given their lives in the defence of this nation.

 

He is not my mate, I am not showing solidarity, if he chooses to insult you by using terms that could be insulting to people from a particular group, such as Muslims or soldiers then he is wrong as well. You are clearly paranoid and more than a little chippy and like I stated before you do yourself no favours by indulging in the petty, bigoted name calling you seek to attack and I highlight this as evidence of my point:

 

No wonder you were a soldier, limited intelligence of course meant not much good for anything else apparently. Both attacks you mention were not carried out in name of religion but politics. You of course are unable to differentiate that so no point wasting time in explaining, as they say you can't teach new tricks to................ etc..........save to say you are clueless and are destined to remain so till the end.