victor said:
So, why are we fighting other countries' wars again? Now, this isn't a Glenn Beck type troll. I'm actually throwing out a question to you people who know more about world politics than I do. Why am I paying taxes so Swedish soldiers can go to a country that I've barely even heard of, and get shot, for?
Iraq was a bonehead move, but Afghanistan was actually nearly a necessity.
what could possibly go wrong with some of the most disjointed islamists running a country famous for insurgency, gun running and drug traffic?
victor said:
Now, I get this UN allegiance thing, sure. But what can Sweden possibly gain from this? Political goodwill? Trade agreements? Seriously, please tell me. It seems to me they're mostly just directing negative attention to Sweden by participating in this "war on terror".
someday you'll realise that your cushy life is made possible by people defending your ass. Afghanistan was headed for becoming a huge pain in our collective asses (eventhough it still is today ofc), we had to do something.
besides, who do people protect the weak? because it's their moral duty, is it not? aside from protecting our intrest in a certain region, the reason why we deploy troops to african hellholes for instance is because we have the ability to do something good.
PS: Switzerland sent troops to Afghanistan, Victor.
victor said:
I'm trying to find an argument to even keep a "standing" army (mostly made up of conscripts) in Sweden at all. A lot of money is being squandered. I mostly reacted today because I once again noticed the hundred of billboards and posters posted by the Swedish Armed forces, encouraging people to go to Afghanistan or Africa. Not to mention, not too long ago, they had a pretty offensive ad running on Spotify, and I think they still run ads on TV.
conscripts are a waste of budget, but a well equiped & trained army is a good investment.
if everyone in europe thinks like you, the next retard with a pointy stick will be able to overrun us. that's not really a smart move. we'll always need the military, even if it isn't in its optimal configuration at this time.
in a lot of situations, we are "safe" only because we have economic might AND military power to back it up. if you think you can get anywhere with economic might alone, you're sadly mistaken.
victor said:
Again, this isn't an attempt to troll, I just want an explanation. Maybe you can find a parallel with your own country's armed forces? And please, no comparison with the US, there doesn't seem to be a point.
Belgium has a small professional army with a few specialisations. we're mostly good at demining (land & sea), low altitude drops and peace keeping.
i'd really say we should quit being pussies and use our military more. we try to use it now, but the smallest thing that happens and the politicians piss their pants & pull out.
the most obvious illustration of this for my country would be the UN mission to Rwanda, headed by the Canadian Lt Gen Dallaire. many nations contributed men (mostly poor third world countries, because their men get a nice paycheck working with the UN. serving with the UN in a warzone is considered a REWARD to the soldiers...) and many nations contributed logistics (the rich countries donate goods. like the USA, they donated dozens of WW2 trucks. half broke down and had to be cannibalised to get the rest rolling. thanks a lot.). in the end, it's a few rich nations that actually send both men & supplies that make the mission work. the belgian section were welltrained paracommandos, with a lot of light gear and loads of ammo. they provided for most of the mission.
the goal was to bring stability to the region and protect the people. the UN rules of engagement sadly stated they could only fire in self-defense (good job!).
when trying to protect high ranking political figures, 10 paracommandos were cornered during an escort (no shots were fired so they were not allowed to return fire, the enemy was painfully aware of this). by the time their lives were really threathened, they could no longer return fire without it being suicide. they surrendered their weapons & were captured. days later, they were savagely executed.
what was the belgian political response? PULL OUT. the mission crumbled. the highly trained backbone of the mission was removed & the supplies were gone. result? The Rwandan Genocide, at least 500,000 people were killed. people were being chopped up by machetes in front of the remaining UN soldiers and they weren't even allowed to intervene!
we could have prevented this?
- sane non-politically inspired rules of engagement. why send soldiers if they CANNOT ACT?
- no restriction on equipment. only 'light' gear was issued, no armor was to be used by mission parameters. the only armor available were a few APCs, most of which were broken down and used as pillboxes/bunkers. why send in your troops completely naked?
- a no-fleeing accord amongst the supplying nations. you do NOT pull back no matter what. if 10 paracommandos are executed doing their jobs, you deploy a fucking armor brigade into the bloody city. the killers in the genocide were armed with primarily machetes, a bunch of AKs and a few RPGs... no doubt the appearance of a brigade of Leopard 2 tanks into the city would've kept their will to kill burning on a very low fire indeed. instead of the firestorm we saw in 1994...
- allow soldiers to act on what they know. the location of 4 huge weaponscaches were known to the UN before the massacre. these weapons were distributed later at the start of the massacre and were used to kill over 500.000 people...
victor said:
Not every man who has killed someone is an idiot. But every man who has gone to a country located roughly at his country's antipodal longitude, and kills someone to "protect democracy" is an idiot. And the one who follows to clean up the mess by killing even more people is also a complete fucking idiot.
Some wars might be necessary. This one isn't. Not for Sweden, anyway.
who's to tell?
isn't there an influx of extremist muslims in your country as well? given time and ample manipulation from extremist regimes like the Taliban, they surely become a danger to your way of life. look at the UK? they're very much busy selling out their freedoms and culture for the sake of being politically correct...
attempting to clean up the mess for the Afghanis was a bonus, but certainly not the prime motivation. and by cleaning up, i do not mean bringing democracy. democracy sucks, but sadly it's all we have for now.
it's true that the americunts jumpstarted the deal, but they had their own reasons which are mostly political and irrelevant to us in nature.
the belgians went because if the situation isn't normalised there, there will be trouble here.
disclaimer: please don't reply to this insinuating that i'm a dumbass racist that doesn't respect other cultures.
