Yet Another Green on Blue Attack in Western Afghanistan - Polidicks

[QUOTE=deadoon;37297708]Calling someone "subhuman" is among the most degrading insults possible, racist insults are just variations of such comments. Throwing around such terms is unnecessary and degrades their side of the argument to the point of ignoring, not a joking matter or subject.[/QUOTE] it isn't hard to gauge that kopimi is very well being satirical about people who actually use terms like that like that seriously

[QUOTE=Marbalo;37297726]are you fucking kidding me it's satire, whether or not you were slightly offended doesn't negate the fact that still a goddamned satire.[/QUOTE] How is calling someone subhuman excusable? Because it was a joke? Why make a joke out of degrading and directly insulting someones social status?

[QUOTE=deadoon;37297751]How is calling someone subhuman excusable? Because it was a joke? Why make a joke out of degrading and directly insulting someones social status?[/QUOTE] to indirectly make fun of people who actually use that term??? the way he worded it is kinda obvious

[QUOTE=Ownederd;37297737]it isn't hard to gauge that kopimi is very well being satirical about people who actually use terms like that like that seriously[/QUOTE] If they can joke about something, what is to say that they don't actually believe it but keep up a farce to save face. [editline]18th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Ownederd;37297759]to indirectly make fun of people who actually use that term???[/QUOTE] Then call those people out on it.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;37297808]this is so painful to read you aren't even dumb you're just so clueless and naive it makes me cringe reading your posts. unless you're just fucking around because no one can be this hilariously sheltered he cant deal with the word "subhuman".[/QUOTE] And you resort to directed insults, rather than self-justification. Then again that's what this whole thread has been about, self-justification. It is not that I cannot deal with the phrase, but merely mentioned that it is instances such as that and many others, along with his method of arguing, the moral high ground, that cause him to have such a title. If you can't tell already, I just hate those kind of insults.

I wonder what the background check consists of for the Police. Probably just a 4-choice multiple choice test with 12 questions. But then again, it is almost impossible to tell what someone is thinking.

[QUOTE=Reserved Parkin;37297973]But then again, it is almost impossible to tell what someone is thinking.[/QUOTE] Currently one of the methods they use to screen a potential ANA or ANP recruit is they ask a village elder to vouch for them. If the elder sympathizes with the Taliban, or if the Taliban has the elder under their control (either through bribes or threats), then they could vouch for anybody. I'm sure there's other screening processes in place as well but asking a village elder to vouch for somebody isn't exactly reliable.

[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;37297498]NATO is generally considered the same guys. [editline]18th August 2012[/editline] You are a shit poster who should seriously consider suicide.[/QUOTE] asking people to commit suicide even with the relevant thread on extremely high military suicide rates you are one classy debater [editline]edit[/editline] nevermind you told someone to kill themselves in the suicide thread too. you are one sick fuck.

the jingoism in this thread holy fuck

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37298806]the jingoism in this thread holy fuck[/QUOTE] There is very little jingoism, just some people said they were in the military and others felt obligated to try and get pissy over it.

[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;37302096]There is very little jingoism, just some people said they were in the military and others felt obligated to try and get pissy over it.[/QUOTE] really outrageous that people are upset about paying for people to go wage war against a country that doesn't deserve it, the audacity of some people [editline]18th August 2012[/editline] why shouldn't i get pissy seriously? you say that as if the default is "i cant believe youre not ecstatic that some 19 year old kid wants to go get his legs blown off in afghanistan!!", why the fuck would i encourage someone for both putting themselves at risk for no discernible reward and contributing to a war (and the bill that follows) that i disagree with?

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37302953]really outrageous that people are upset about paying for people to go wage war against a country that doesn't deserve it, the audacity of some people [editline]18th August 2012[/editline] why shouldn't i get pissy seriously? you say that as if the default is "i cant believe youre not ecstatic that some 19 year old kid wants to go get his legs blown off in afghanistan!!", why the fuck would i encourage someone for both putting themselves at risk for no discernible reward and contributing to a war (and the bill that follows) that i disagree with?[/QUOTE] Why the fuck would you whine about it to him when it accomplishes nothing and he has already told you nothing you say will change his opinion.

[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;37303167]Why the fuck would you whine about it to him when it accomplishes nothing and he has already told you nothing you say will change his opinion.[/QUOTE] nothing you can say to me will change my opinion so please stop whining about my whining

[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;37303167]Why the fuck would you whine about it to him when it accomplishes nothing and he has already told you nothing you say will change his opinion.[/QUOTE] please stop acting like a manchild you're not helping yourself

[QUOTE=Ownederd;37304424]please stop acting like a manchild you're not helping yourself[/QUOTE] You are completely one to talk.

[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;37304734]You are completely one to talk.[/QUOTE] that's funny, considering that [B]you're being outright degrading and insulting [/B]while the worst i do is act sarcastic V [QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;37297498]You are a shit poster who should seriously consider suicide.[/QUOTE] please don't act like you have the emotional and social maturity of a piece of bread, because in reality, you know you don't want to

[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;37304734]You are completely one to talk.[/QUOTE] arent you like 15? seriously quit while you're ahead, all you're doing is literally flaming people because they responded negatively to someone who is taking every opportunity to remind everyone that he's in the military and proud of it

[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;37304734]You are completely one to talk.[/QUOTE] The day pinkpanzer creates an actual argument with substance will be one of celebration. A new era will be among us. [editline]18th August 2012[/editline] for the impossible has been made possible. [editline]18th August 2012[/editline] course none of that has happened yet

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37305291]The day pinkpanzer creates an actual argument with substance will be one of celebration. A new era will be among us. [editline]18th August 2012[/editline] for the impossible has been made possible. [editline]18th August 2012[/editline] course none of that has happened yet[/QUOTE] That's funny seeing as you take a prissy anti America stance in almost every thread you find no matter how often you are proven wrong.

[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;37305461]That's funny seeing as you take a prissy anti America stance in almost every thread you find no matter how often you are proven wrong.[/QUOTE] god bless american army!!!!!! love you [B]edit:[/B] real talk: literally no one is doing this

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37296445]No it's not. Not in the slightest.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry but not everyone in the military is close too or even related to the fighting in any way. You can be a desk clerk in the air force and never even touch a gun, let alone 'support' whatever war your country just happens to be fighting at the time.

[QUOTE=Ownederd;37305570]god bless american army!!!!!! love you [B]edit:[/B] real talk: literally no one is doing this[/QUOTE] boy, do YOU hate FREEDOM? WAR is in our JEANS. IT is the REASON we BEAT HITLER in 1964

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37302953]really outrageous that people are upset about paying for people to go wage war against a country that doesn't deserve it, the audacity of some people[/QUOTE] Definitely fair. [QUOTE=Kopimi;37302953]why shouldn't i get pissy seriously? you say that as if the default is "i cant believe youre not ecstatic that some 19 year old kid wants to go get his legs blown off in afghanistan!!", why the fuck would i encourage someone for both putting themselves at risk for no discernible reward and contributing to a war (and the bill that follows) that i disagree with?[/QUOTE] Well I mean he's gone on and on about the benefits (free training in an aviation field, likely recognition of his service in job selection) and that he views the chance of death as an acceptable risk. As for the political side he's made clear that he believes that US involvement in Afghanistan is better than just letting the Taliban have it. I mean there's a lot to be debated amongst those topics but you never really went too far into the specifics of them iirc. But I mean it seems like the thing that most people tend to be glossing over is that the reason he's being deployed is to [b]secure the withdrawal[/b] anyways. He's probably going to be working more defensively than offensively the vast majority of the time. Hell he's a helicopter mechanic. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37305291]The day pinkpanzer creates an actual argument with substance will be one of celebration. A new era will be among us. [editline]18th August 2012[/editline] for the impossible has been made possible. [editline]18th August 2012[/editline] course none of that has happened yet[/QUOTE] Ok I'm sorry because I try not to wade into shit like this but you really are just as bad if not worse. I'm surprised that SKEEA managed to keep his head as well as he did with you making comments like this: [quote]So you're joining just because your family is involved? You can't think for yourself? Well you're joining the military so that answers that question.[/quote] Heckling comments like that have no place in rational debate. Like it isn't even an issue of pleasantries or anything, you can say whatever you want on the internet etc; but you literally will not convince someone who disagrees with you like that. It's also incorrect and shows that you don't give a flying fuck about what he's saying, as he had already given multiple other reasons for his enlistment. The VALIDITY of his reasons should be discussed instead of resorting to a "Pappy did it and I will too!" Argument. And do you seriously believe that the united states military is an "Unequivocally evil organization"? I mean don't get me wrong the US military has done some fucked up things but calling it unequivocally evil is about as naive and wrong as all those people who "Just want to bomb those sand niggers" or whatever. Any organization devoted almost entirely to destruction is an ugly thing, but until we reach a time when we can settle shit without killing each other they're kind of necessary. Honestly I'm surprised that Goblin doesn't get called out more. Or at least I've surprised that Kopimi gets called out more than him and has a title. Kopimi at least posts valid opinions and arguments most of the time, and is decent, this guy is regularly an ass. I would respond specifically to W0w00t, as he was a moron as well, but honestly there's no logic in there at all and I'm pretty sure he literally doesn't give a fuck anyways.

Haha, oh god this thread. I thought I was gonna go here and have fun at SKEEA being a ridiculous tool again, but the way the other posters like kopimi contributed to make this thread a shit cascade was hilarious. Then there's more shitposting going on on both sides and it completely hits the fan, god, what a torrent of shit. List of posters who weren't absolutely terrible in this topic: -wowoot -marbalo -ownederd that's it.

[QUOTE=gamefreek76;37291551]Afghanistan is one of the few middle eastern countries that actually wants our help.[/QUOTE] They have a funny way of showing it.

One of the few times I decide to read the posts instead of just the article and I hit the one with all the ~anti military~ kids. What a lucky night this is.

[QUOTE=Legolas;37320350]One of the few times I decide to read the posts instead of just the article and I hit the one with all the ~anti military~ kids. What a lucky night this is.[/QUOTE] Thank you for being ~patronising~

ITT: Butthurt

[B]Afghan forces. Green-on-blue attacks. The solution[/B] The Afghan National Army, the "green" force is rotten, if not to its core then to much of the periphery. Some of the green is more like gangrene (gan-green, get it! ) The problem I see is in the disconnect between the political control (Karzai) and the funding (mostly from the USA but anyway internationally funded). [quote][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_National_Army#Current_status]Wikipedia: Afghan National Army[/url] The new Afghan National Army was founded with the issue of a decree by President Hamid Karzai on December 1, 2002[/quote] Karzai as the "duly" (ahem) elected president of Afghanistan is perfectly entitled to run an Afghan national army but Afghans should pay for that themselves. Afghanistan is a poor nation and could not afford that much of an army but if they paid for it themselves, at least the Afghan national army would likely be honest, accountable to Afghans and take on limited tasks - secure the presidential palace, military headquarters and might be up to defending the capital Kabul and surrounding land, maybe. Now the issue is this - to secure all of Afghanistan, even to secure our supply routes, we need lots of troops and it makes sense to have some kind of Afghan force to help us - but we need a bigger and better green force than the Afghans can afford to pay for. (Also why would a national Afghan force want to prioritise defending our supply routes? They wouldn't want to.) So the West, NATO needs to pay for some green Afghan forces - that's a good idea, if, if, if, if and only if, those green forces we are paying for are auxiliary to NATO-ISAF - run by NATO-ISAF - under the control of a NATO general, maybe an American general if you could find a good one to do it. That way we would only recruit capable Afghans into the green force we pay for and interact with daily. We'd be sure our green troops were loyal - wouldn't shoot our blue troops. No way would we have any incentive to spend our own money on disloyal incapable Afghans in green uniform so we would not do it, if we had political and military control over our green forces, which we would have if they were called "The NATO-ISAF Afghan auxiliary force" - with no pretence of them being an Afghan national force under Karzai. However, some idiot has come up with the idea of paying Afghans to have an army funded by us but controlled by Karzai so there is no accountability. The people in charge, deciding who to recruit, can recruit bad soldiers because they get paid more by the US for soldiers, whether they be bad soldiers or not. Why wouldn't Karzai and this guy [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/Sher_Mohammad_Karimi_in_2010.jpg/250px-Sher_Mohammad_Karimi_in_2010.jpg[/img] [i]Lt. Gen. Sher Mohammad Karim, Commander of the Afghan National Army[/i] recruit junkies, thieves, murderers and agents for the Taliban into the Afghan National Army? Why wouldn't they recruit anybody they can find into the Afghan national army if, for every soldier they can name, they get paid more US dollars? Where's the incentive for Karzai and Karim to recruit only good soldiers? There isn't any incentive at all. Again the US ends up funding corruption. If a green soldier kills a blue then who gets held responsible in the chain of command? Nobody gets held responsible. Who should get held responsible? The US and NATO should. We should blame ourselves for paying anything for an army which we do not have any political control over. What on earth does Panetta (and what did Gates before him) think he is (was) doing trusting this guy Karzai and his general Karim with billions of US tax-payer dollars to pay for a green army? Why are NATO defence ministers happy with the poor leadership from NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the NATO Supreme Allied Commander Admiral James Stavridis? Shouldn't the NATO leaders have spotted this fatal flaw in green troop organisation and tried to re-organise green forces as I suggest here, if they know what they are doing (which they don't)? [B]The competent answer to green on blue attacks is to split up the Afghan army into two distinct forces - a national Afghan army which Afghans pay for and is commanded by the Afghan president and whichever general he/she wants to appoint. (dark green) a NATO-ISAF auxiliary force of Afghans, funded by the US and other NATO counties and international donors. This would be commanded by our generals. (light green)[/B] So there should be two green armies - each of a different shade of green. Karzai's dark green he would use to defend himself and his capital. Our light green we would use to defend our supply routes and to support our operations in Afghanistan generally. Only when the Afghan economy had grown to the point that they could afford to pay for a big enough army to defend the whole country would we transfer our light green army over to Afghan national control and then we could leave Afghanistan in the hands of Afghans. So long as we are paying for an Afghan force we must retain political control over it otherwise it fuels corruption and does little or nothing to help to fight the enemy we are trying to defeat and the green-on-blue attacks simply undermine political support for the whole Afghanistan / Pakistan mission. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/user/AfpakMission"]AfPak Mission on YouTube[/URL] [URL="http://peterdow.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/afghanistan-pakistan-afpak-military-strategy-and-the-war-on-terror-15-2/"]AfPak military strategy blog[/URL]