Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeyi
The thing is JGB, that's my original post (above) where I mentioned soldiers "deployed" in Germany,. I just rattled off where we had soldiers from the top of my head - some may not even be accurate!
It's just these morons, not you, who can't find any real argument to my post so they pick up on irrelevant little bits, forceably misinterpret them and then stray off topic;blowing a comment which was not a major point of my post out of proportion in order to counter debate.
A lousy tactic I might add.
|
Fair enough. To address your original point would you not agree that the presence and power of these militant groups is due to the fact the UK/US/whoever removed a strong leader who was very tough on crime? Nah, I'm only kidding there really! But obviously you can't use the "dangerous militant groups" argument to support the existence of an offensive army. Fair enough its role is much more defensive now, and I'm not going to be retarded enough to sit here claiming the only contribution by the various armed forces in Iraq is killing children (sanctions were far more effective at that anyways), they've built roads, power stations etc. But the problems they're dealing with are ones largely created by those same countries, either by supporting Saddam during the Cold War as an anti-communist bulwark or via economic sanctions which mainly affected the poorest people in Iraq during the 90s or during "shock and awe" when the combined air forces of the most powerful militaries on earth blew the shit out of whatever was left standing and was of any possible military utility.
Western armies since WWII have primarily , and rather disgracefully, been used as a tool for governments to bring about favourable changes internationally under the banner of fighting for freedom or human rights or any one of a myriad of other worthy causes. Certainly not for self-defence anyways.