spooky lynx 73 Posted March 3, 2010 But UK often participates in all US "adventures" like Operation Iraqi Freedom. No matter, if there was real necessity for UK to invade Iraq. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ProfTournesol 956 Posted March 3, 2010 Friendly speaking, there are not many really independent countries in the world. Most of others are somebody's satellites and have to behave in the manner, which does not differ with that of the regional (or global) leading countries. Typical sovietic dialectics : "as no country in the world is really independant, i can invade whatever country i like and call this liberation". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spooky lynx 73 Posted March 3, 2010 Typical sovietic dialectics : "as no country in the world is really independant, i can invade whatever country i like and call this liberation". Only sovietic? Not US (Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Yugoslavia), not British and French (Egypt in 1956, Vietnam again)? I'd rather call it dialectics of every global-leading country. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Second 0 Posted March 3, 2010 Typical sovietic dialectics : "as no country in the world is really independant, i can invade whatever country i like and call this liberation". You sound quite brainwashed by your own propaganda... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ProfTournesol 956 Posted March 3, 2010 You sound quite brainwashed by your own propaganda... Care to elaborate, if it isn't pure flaming ? ---------- Post added at 18:12 ---------- Previous post was at 18:06 ---------- Only sovietic? Not US (Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Yugoslavia), not British and French (Egypt in 1956, Vietnam again)? I'd rather call it dialectics of every global-leading country. I agree in some way, "imperialism" is or was widespread, but it wouldn't be fair to compare USSR imperialism towards its satellite countries, and what's happening in Afghanistan today (I'm not talking about Irak which was a different story IMO). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Soldier of Anarchy 10 Posted March 3, 2010 Before this gets lost and locked. Based on the first post this sounds like an effective way to combat your foes. Even an insufficient powder load could mess up a weapon for good like, lodge a bullet midway, or kill the operator. But this could affect more than just the taliban. Ammo and weapons from these regions find their way all over the world and into the hands of both oppressors and liberators. Todays successful black op sabotage mission, could be tomorrows whoops we just screwed friendly rebels with tainted ammo. Thats "IF" they don't mistakenly distribute the tainted arms.....cause we know Black op's and their government's don't make mistakes :rolleyes: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted March 3, 2010 But UK often participates in all US "adventures" like Operation Iraqi Freedom. No matter, if there was real necessity for UK to invade Iraq. There's a big difference between sucking up to someone, and being dependent on them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Clavicula_nox4817 0 Posted March 4, 2010 Before this gets lost and locked. Based on the first post this sounds like an effective way to combat your foes. Even an insufficient powder load could mess up a weapon for good like, lodge a bullet midway, or kill the operator. But this could affect more than just the taliban. Ammo and weapons from these regions find their way all over the world and into the hands of both oppressors and liberators. Todays successful black op sabotage mission, could be tomorrows whoops we just screwed friendly rebels with tainted ammo. Thats "IF" they don't mistakenly distribute the tainted arms.....cause we know Black op's and their government's don't make mistakes :rolleyes: SOG distributed a lot of contaminated ammunition and weapons to the VietCong in Vietnam. This idea isn't exactly new. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmarkwick 261 Posted March 4, 2010 Care to elaborate, if it isn't pure flaming ? To be fair, it was a response to flamebait :) Plus, all the elaboration needed is already right there in the post for you to see ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ProfTournesol 956 Posted March 4, 2010 (edited) To be fair, it was a response to flamebait :) Plus, all the elaboration needed is already right there in the post for you to see ;) I don't see anything fair here, even with nice smileys. But as i'm grown up, i'll stop here. Edited March 4, 2010 by ProfTournesol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RossCrispin 10 Posted March 4, 2010 taliban not going to defeat in easy way,nato advancing but now time is come to face trouble.nato soldier now face real twist of talban. The real twist? The twist that's 180degrees spin then run like hell? Taliban are nothing but cowards, yeah, they have guns. Any fool can fight, it's just whether they've got the courage to confront us, and become martyrs, or just use human shields, then run away. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Second 0 Posted March 4, 2010 Care to elaborate, if it isn't pure flaming ? "Typical sovietic dialectics" Should say "Typical super-power dialectics" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
