British Soldier takes on 150 Taliban single handedly. Quote..."They started it."

No, explain yourself. I don't see the brits over there as the good guys?

What the fuck are you talking about?

Yeah...I don't get that either Dan. What do you mean by that?

I read it as you trying to trap flow in an extremely silly wordplay, which he easily sidestepped by saying that the Afgans are the 'other' side but he'd still give them props as they fight the Taliban too.

Maybe I've read it wrong, but I calls it as I sees it

You said Afghani fighting the good guys. Which is a bit naive, as a lot of Taliban are foreign fighters, not Afghanis. Your premise was wrong from the start. You painting me as anti Brit is a bit of a stretch, but at least you can feel like you accomplished something today.

Fair enough...so who's going to be the first to say "no more war, period....come do whatever you want to our society, I'm sure you'll share it fairly with us, your inferiors."

Now's your chance to offer an alternative to 70,000 years of human behavior - you could win the Nobel Peace Prize!

All things considered, I'm glad I supported the American/British side and honestly believe the world is better under us than the Taliban.

christ Dan, always seeing the negative

Well, it wouldn't be "props" per se, as much as a heavy respect for, and desire to kill him.

Right?

I'm not presuming to speak for flow at all, but, I think I'm safe when I say that under no way, shape or form is flow anti-Brit and I doubt with at least a 99.999% certainly that he does not see the Taliban as anything other than bodies to pump bullets into.

I think Shoes summed up most folks thoughts with what he said. Skill and courage under fire don't really adhere to ones perceptions of 'good' and bad'.

Heavy respect for...yeah. I don't desire to kill anybody.

If I was actually a soldier fighting there, then yeah...It would probably be just as you say.

Personally, I'd plump for pride/self-centeredness/something like that (or possibly stupidity) as the worst thing. But there's a lot of overlap with war anyhow.

OK. A serious question for Dan: is it so simple as that "all war is bad", or am I misunderstanding you?

If all war is bad, what are you supposed to do if you're attacked? Roll over? Should England have surrendered to Hitler? Should we have just wrote Korea off (like we did with Vietnam) when the North made an unprovoked invasion? Should the US have just rolled over and given Asia to the Japanese? Kuwait to Saddam?

And if that's the case, shouldn't the bulk of the Middle East now belong to Israel? (Actually, that's not a good example, as the towlies attacked the Israelis first and only by fighting back did the Israelis win a bunch of ground that they later gave back.)

Then you haven't studied enough history.

Plenty of times throughout recorded history one side just showed up with the intent to conquer. In what way would that mean the people who got conquered fucked up?

Do you honestly think, to use a more modern example, that if America had pulled out of Europe after WWII that the Soviet Union wouldn't have made something up to force it's way into West Germany and then possibly the rest of the continent?

You are so damn stupid.

You think the Soviet Union just ran out of men once WWII was over? Did they have some sort of expiration date I'm unaware of?

Afghanistan was not a manpower issue. It was a logistics, economic, and political will issue.

Heheheh... Happily, Dan will never be in a position where his views influence anyone's foreign policy.

I just got back from Korea, where I was engaged in a major exercise, working with my Korean counterparts to ensure that if North Korea ever launches another unprovoked invasion they will be able to defend themselves.

How many communist deaths do you anticipate, based on this wargame?`

So Hitler was just minding his own damn business and...what?


J.

Jews!

Soviet "wargame" plans for an invasion of Western Europe called for the liberal use of nuclear and chemical weapons.