Bullshit words? Or just the crazy logic of the West.

Discussion in 'The ARRSE Hole' started by AIR FILTER, Dec 15, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. We were always told by leading Western Statesmen that attacking rouge country's would ultimately keep the West safe.

    World trade centre deaths ..... 2753 dead confirmed.

    Iraqi Invasion of 2004. American military deaths ..... 4487 and wounded 32226.

    The reality ...... The West did indeed remain safe after 9/11, but obviously not all it's citizens did.

    Care to comment Mr ex president Bush?

    Link ..... The Hindu : News / International : U.S. military operations in Iraq end

    And this is just one typical example of one military operation regarding the United States.

    So the question is ..... Were these pure bullshit words for purposes of going to war? Or is it just the crazy logic of the West:?
  2. This is evidence that Western military ideology is Clearly not worth it regarding the sorting out of the sandbox nations.
  3. napier

    napier LE Moderator Reviewer

    Rouge countries? USSR? China? N. Korea?
    • Like Like x 4
  4. I don't think he's a member on here to be honest.
    • Like Like x 6
  5. yes I fcuking am!
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Yes, true, but excluded from this thread on the grounds that we have not gone to war with them in recent times.

    Heaven help us if we did!
  7. What have you got against rouge countries, these days they're mostly harmless although if those Russians decide they want a few ipods we could be in trouble.

  8. [​IMG]

    Lots of rouge on this rouge chappie.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. This chap was quite rouge.

  10. 4,487 dead and 32,226 wounded Americans alone.

    These figures are the equivalent of several major terrorist attacks on home soil.

    And consider the fact that this cost over 1 Trillion U.S dollars to fund. (yes, One Trillion U.S Dollars)

    I wonder what these monkeys who planed and went on to insist that this happen are thinking off right now of their Jack Ass master plan :?

    Regarding it as some sort of victory i suppose.

    Fucking Nob ends!

  11. By your logic, the Yanks going after the nips over Pearl Harbour was stupid too, after all, only 2,600 killed on that day, but they had 106,000 killed giving the nips a good shoeing in retaliation.

    And $1 trillion? Sounds like a big number, but lets ut that in a bit of perspective as the US GDP is $15 Trillion per annum and their defence budget is $660 Billion per annum.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. So going by your logic of comparison then, The 8 year Iraqi invasion and occupation was remarkable good value for money, both in terms of finance and human life:?

    I call it a classic definition of pure madness on a grand scale.
  13. napier

    napier LE Moderator Reviewer

    Do you know what? No-one on this site gives a fuck. Many of us have served in Iraq/Afghanistan/Balkans/NI/wherever and we know its all bollocks, but we don't need some single issue twat coming on here and bumping their metaphorical gums. So be a good boy/girl/whatever and take it to the Guardian website
    • Like Like x 5
  14. You assume the logic is honest - i.e. you believe the "we're fighting wars abroad to preserve security at home" argument is genuinely what was in the minds of the people who took the decision for war.

    This is the problem with wars of choice - they're usually the product of a fantasy in a politician's head. I have no idea what on earth was going on in Bush's mind, or Blair's for that matter. I don't think they will ever presume to tell us, assuming they can even still make it clear to themselves.

    The whole thing was, to quote Malcolm Tucker, a Fucktastrophe.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. On the contrary, it shows the illogic of the simple numbers killed / cost argument that you introduced. When is it your turn to borrow the brain cell? Sheesh! Don't tell me you've lost it already!