It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Soloprotocol
Reports coming through that Prince Harry was the trigger man.....well my neighbour told me and she never lies to me...
You can’t keep a good party animal down: Prince Harry was at it again on the weekend. Back from his latest gig in Afghanistan, he hit a London hot spot Friday night. The British papers had a lot of detail, none of it scandalous.
He was out with his cousin Princess Beatrice and a couple of minor British TV celebs at Bodo’s Schloss, a resto-disco owned by his pal Thomas van Straubenzee. He bought a round of shots for the house, flirted with Ashley Roberts of the Pussycat Dolls, was in a good mood and kept his clothes on.
www.montrealgazette.com...
First off, this is not a real war, it is a brutal occupation. There is no excuse for killing children
Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
Originally posted by Soloprotocol
Reports coming through that Prince Harry was the trigger man.....well my neighbour told me and she never lies to me...
Your neighbor is lying to you
He has returned to England and here is proof.
You can’t keep a good party animal down: Prince Harry was at it again on the weekend. Back from his latest gig in Afghanistan, he hit a London hot spot Friday night. The British papers had a lot of detail, none of it scandalous.
He was out with his cousin Princess Beatrice and a couple of minor British TV celebs at Bodo’s Schloss, a resto-disco owned by his pal Thomas van Straubenzee. He bought a round of shots for the house, flirted with Ashley Roberts of the Pussycat Dolls, was in a good mood and kept his clothes on.
www.montrealgazette.com...
The article is a couple weeks old.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I fully agree that Western Forces and particularly, NATO forces, love their standoff and longer range weapons. Drones, Rockets, Bombs ..... Just about anything that allows the killing of others with little risk of numbers to report on casualties back home.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Pretty cowardly and chicken crap, if anyone asks me.
Try and use your puny minds to think back to why they went into Afgo in the first place. There was a tyranical group of cowards who found it fun to brutalise and disfigure their women, ban even the smallest of enjoyment eg dancing and singing etc. And were so up themselves that they ruled by fear and intimidation. These same cowards hide behind the skirts of their wives, daughters and sisters, slithering out to take a shot at an anemy then cower back under the skirts again.
Originally posted by Shamrock6
just because you choose to call it a conflict and not a war doesn't change the fact that it's a legally mandated combat engagement. you can argue and debate the legality of it all you want, but you CHOOSING to call it what you WANT doesn't change what it actually is.
You're using your own personal opinion to paint with a very, very broad brush. collateral damage happens.
Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I hate to be the one who says this but the sad fact of war is that collateral damage does happen.
We can all debate until the end of time if the war, any war, is justified but we also have to accept as difficult as it may be and as much as we may disagree with the reasons for war that collateral damage is an evil inevitability. It is sad and heart-breaking but even with all of our technology so long as civilians are present in a theatre of war there will always be collateral damage no matter how advanced the technology may be. Furthermore when fighting an asymmetrical war where the enemy hides amounts civilian populations the risk of collateral damage is only multiplied. I think we often forget that, we presume that with our spectacular technology that such horrible accidents can never happen but the sad truth is that we can only ever minimise the risk not remove it.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
[I'm sorry, but that "If you weren't there, you can't say' crap carries about nothing with me.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
As for defending the move to remote control warfare, I hope you're feeling as determined and sure about that when the ONLY means enemies have to fight back in the future is terrorism. When Military is too hard to reach and they don't even show up on the battlefield anymore, it won't be a cowards way out to be a terrorist. In some ways, it'll be the only option left.
That's a bad place to go for MANY reasons, and that is just one consideration among many.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I'll also say point blank, if the nation isn't willing to see it's soldiers fight and die in the same level of combat that the enemy is forced to, the fight probably is NOT WORTH fighting in the first place.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I'm certainly not in agreement with C.E. on this thread for specifics, but in general terms, I do think we've been in Afghanistan about 11 years too long and this whole damn thing should have been done by Christmas of 2001. It almost WAS, too. Baby Bush just HAD to have a proper war with Marines and battles and all the rest of the crap. Letting the CIA team and Green Berets end this right then and there wasn't good enough for him. So two nations have had over a decade of war for nothing. (Not counting Iraq)