McBif Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 ALHOLK said: Cuba didn't invade Angola they were asked to help just the US troopes were asked to help in Europe many moons ago. Regarding Cuba's adventures abroad in the '70s and '80s (sorry, Alholk, I don't particularly mean to take a shot at you with this post) I think it's important to remember that Cuba had neither the money nor the means to ship troops to Africa. Once there, they couldn't feed themselves nor arm themselves or anything else. They were 100% bankrolled by the Soviets. In other words they were, in the strictest sense of the word, mercenaries. They were of little use there, anyway, at least when facing South African forces - comparable to the success rate Arab armies have had against Israeli or Western forces. That is to say they were ground up. I believe, too, that Castro had a fair bit of trouble with them, particularly the officers, when they returned (they left something like 14,000 dead behind - about 25%). Their morale was shattered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBif Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 Sorry, Cent. You're right. I'm pretty lazy when it comes to fact-checking. I suffer from this sorta stream of consciousness where I'm floating in a miasma of impressions and colours and half-remembered stories... I'm the sorta guy who blurts out things like, "Hey, remember when that S.O.B. Jimmy Carter got a peanut lodged up his arse?" And some cool hand who's done his homework will say, "Easy, big fella, that was his brother, Billy." Anyway, thrillers are great. I must've read all of Clancy and Chrichton and Le Carre (though he might be considered a bit more up-market) and others. Thank God for books! Dunno what I'd do without them. I was thinking it might make for a good post to ask members what Thai-oriented stuff - both professional and amateur - they read. Top of my list would be your stories (don't wanna sound like I'm arse crawling here!) and Turk Fist and Dana and C. Moore and Mangosauce David and ChuckWoww and Jake Needham and.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaiLuk Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 Suppose the US has been invaded by a vastly superior muslim army...of course it's never going to happen....but use your imagination. Your door has been kicked down, your kids have been shot or your father has been dragged off with a bag on his head. This is not a fair analogy to what is happening in iraq. Sunnis (20% of the iraqi population) have for decades under saddam monopolized all of the government in iraq and took all the prime jobs, wealth and business for themselves. They mercilessly oppressed and killed the shiites along with a hundred thousand kurds. In comes the US and topples saddam. And the US decides that iraq is going to have a government elected by the people rather than appointed by saddam and his crew. Never mind that the US invaded. we know that and a major fuck up it was. But we are dealing with the hear and now. A segment of the Sunni tribe objects to this and engage in two ways: 1.. Extremely limited attacks on US forces. 2. All out murder and mayhem against the shiites. The Sunni genocidal campaign against the shiites is just a continuation of the oppression they perpetrated previously except now it is extremely violent. The idea that the sunni animals are fighting against an occupying force is crap. They are fighting against the shiites and the shiite attempt to establish a democracy. It is so obviously false to look at the sunni campaign as a war against occupiers that the idea can only thrive amongst those in the grips of anti american hysteria. Somehow i doubt that a muslim army would occupy the US and then decide to hold democratiic elections. I also doubt that one group of fascist americans would try to commit genocide against everyone who wanted to vote in the elections and their wives daughters and babies. The implicatiion that the shiites are collaborrators with the americans and therefore should not be surprised they are targeted for death might not go over to well with the shiites risking their lives to try to establish a democratic state. They are not collaborators they need the US to defend against a band of genocidal jack asses. And the euro psuedo intellectuals pursuing their political agendas against the US at the expense of the iraqis are an embarassment. The iraqis (shiites, sunnis and kurds) deserve to have a secure elected government. In fact they want it and they voted for it, only the animals amongst the sunnis refuse to accept it. And only euro types seem to redefine the animals as freedom fighters all facts to the contrary notwithstanding. If the animals really wanted the US to pull out, they would stop comitting genocide and mayhem against innocent iraqis which would allow the US to extricate itself from its disastrous decision to invade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaiLuk Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 A question to you americans in general - if you don't want Iraq under sharia law, why did you establish an afghan state under sharia law? Because we don't control what laws they pass. Now i know someone is going to say "How can you believe that?" etc. The fact is that the US tries to influence matters but is not always successful. Recently, the iraqi prime minister stated his opinion that iran has an absolute right to pursue nuclear energy. Why? Because we don't control whaqt he says. If the iraqis enact sharia laws there is nothing the US can do about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 Shiite attempt to establish a democracy! That's a good one. Anyway I said it was a hypothetical scenario. And there could be serious repercussions in the US if the hypothetical muslim army decided to exploit ethnic divisions and demographics. How about if they decided to put Mexicans in charge of Texas and the South West? What if they gave Detroit to Black Muslims? Suppose they recognized Indian land claims in the Dakotas? I don't think it would be a nice orderly insurgency. I know Evel Kneivel would stick strictly to the Geneva Convention but it could get downright animalistic in some quarters. "If the animals really wanted the US to pull out, they would stop comitting genocide and mayhem against innocent iraqis which would allow the US to extricate itself from its disastrous decision to invade. " In other words if they would just cooperate the US would leave? I don't think so. The insurgents know about the permanent bases the US is building even if most people in the US don't. http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaiLuk Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 Many attempts were made to include the sunnis in the process and in the end they actually did participate. The insurgency is primarily the baathist hanger ons who have everything to lose if a democracy takes hold. Good point about the indians! The british peoples and their heirs have a lot of baggage in their closet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 MaiLuk said:Many attempts were made to include the sunnis in the process and in the end they actually did participate. The insurgency is primarily the baathist hanger ons who have everything to lose if a democracy takes hold. Good point about the indians! The british peoples and their heirs have a lot of baggage in their closet That's true. The Sunnis are the losers in all this. Just as the people who run America would be the losers if the hypothetical muslim army dispossessed them. It just proves my point...you can't turn the power structure upside down and expect no angry reaction. Don't expect the Iraqi Sunnis to quit making trouble any time soon. They are a majority in the Arab world and well armed and financed by Saudis who don't want to see Shiites (and/or Iranians) in charge of Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaiLuk Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 IMO the US should pull out asap. The sunnis are a necessary counterwight to the shiite iranians. The incompetent fuckheads in Wash DC have us fighting against the people who should be our allies. The more we assist the shiites to establish a stable government the more powerful iran becomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 MaiLuk said:IMO the US should pull out asap. The sunnis are a necessary counterwight to the shiite iranians. The incompetent fuckheads in Wash DC have us fighting against the people who should be our allies. The more we assist the shiites to establish a stable government the more powerful iran becomes. I'd go further than that and make a deal with Saddam. Sell us cheap oil, don't make trouble and you can have your job back. You can even have a battalion of marines to help you. Course it might mean a temporary loss of face but people have short attention spans these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaiLuk Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 Saddam is our ace in the hole. If the government falls apart we can un-retire him and make him our man in baghdad LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.