Australia, USA and Canada

[Ari Gold]

 

At least not anyone who is being serious, isn't drunk, completely bogan or in any position of power.

I would love to see the Boxing Kangaroo as the flag and I'm serious (I am), not drunk (I am 15), not bogan (I go to a Catholic boys high school) and obviously not in any position of power.

 

The only alteration I can see happening within our lifetimes is a straight swap of the Union Jack with the Aboriginal flag.

This is probably even more unlikely. All the aboriginals will have a whinge about it being a bloody sacred flag and it should only be used by them. A town, Mordialloc, near where I live, had the Aboriginal flag flying and aboriginals tore it down because they didn't want white people using it. It was replaced within a week and was then tore down again.

Yeah, but Mordialloc is a sh*t-hole.

Wait, weren't you the guy that was a member of government or something? Great thing to say about your country.

 

And anyway, it's the principle. Wherever you go abo's don't want you using their flag.

Nope, I just live close enough to Mordialloc to know that it's an absolutely rabid suburb. Every bayside suburb around it is nice and I love and like, I just don't really like Mordialloc. Their beach is okay, though.

 

Also, it's rather short-sighted to just broadly denounce every single Aboriginal as "not wanting you to use their flag", that's a rather absurd exaggeration. Like Jay said, wait a few more years until you actually get some civic and life experience under your belt before making such a ridiculous statement.

 

Anywho, on the topic of a new Australian flag, I'm not really that fussed, to be honest; for me, it's largely a non-issue for over-parochial Australians to talk about something as if it's actually worth talking about (which is pretty much the same as any noteworthy political issue which is raised amongst the Australian public for "discussion"). The Australian flag has become so well-engrained within Australian culture, despite the presence of the Union Jack, and despite all the radical republicans complaining about this presence as being emblematic of British colonisation (as if the British never colonised Australia or anything like that, we just happened to build this country on our own ), changing it right now would be kind of... Pointless. Despite being nominally anti-union, I do think that the Eureka Flag would be a nice national flag, but I think that that'll just turn our national culture into something regulated by the ACTU.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Stefche

[General Scrotum]

As we all know, Canada is divided in three populations (not including the immigrants from other countries): the First Nations; the English-Canadians; the French-Canadians.

 

As for the First Nations, I cannot say what they think of British people. As for the English-Canadians, they are closer to Great Britain (and the Queen) as the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, put pictures of the Queen in all Federal Government buildings. Not to forget that the first English-Canadians were loyalists still devoted to Great Britain who fled from the USA at the time when the 13 Colonies seeked independance. As for the French-Canadians, we all know what the British did to try to assimilate them to their culture after the 13 Colonies conquered Quebec (in "Nouvelle-France") and Great Britain won their battle against France (in Europe:) the "Serment du Test" which consisted, for the French-Canadians who wanted to be part of the British administration, to deny their religion and the authority of the Pope (note that French-Canadians were big believers at that time and the Church was basically the second leader besiders the, let's say, authorities); the union of the two Canada's, also known as 'United Canada' (Lower Canada, which changed name to East-Canada, and Higher Canada, which changed name to West-Canada, which both represent Quebec and Ontario respectively) which was intended to give English-Canadians more power in politics against the French-Canadians (Lower Canada, Quebec, had 600 000 inhabitants and 42 deputies, whilst Higher Canada, Ontario, had 400 000 of population and the same number of deputies. Not to forget Ontario had only Birtish folks and Quebec had both French and English people. If you do the maths: 42 Britains for Ontario and 16 in Quebec against 34 French deputies.) I could name more, but I won't.

 

Nowadays, from what I've heard in a video on YouTube from a debate, Quebec is giving to the federal government $37 000 000 whilst all the other provinces (Alberta, New-Brunswick, Manitoba, etc.) are giving it $34 000 000. Also, Ottawa had debts of $40 000 000 to Quebec and forces it to scrap some of their functionning systems (i.e. chilhood reintegration for those who made bad things like crimes or taking drugs, etc.) to fund one that "isn't even working" or I could also mention that 1812's war (which if USA had won, Canada wouldn't exist) that Quebec is suposedly funding more than the other provinces or it beeing forced to pay for a "useless" Lieutenant-Governor. Yet again, I am only stating things said in that video.

 

It's pretty obvious that the English-Canadians are closer to Great Britain than what the French-Canadians are.

 

 

As for Australia, I am not quite found of that country so I can't say anything about it.

 

 

About the United States: if you would have asked me that question back in the time they claimed their independance from Great Britain, the question would of been obvious: bad. Nowadays, things seem to be much better than they were back then though.

[Icarus]

Nowadays, from what I've heard in a video on YouTube from a debate, Quebec is giving to the federal government $37 000 000 whilst all the other provinces (Alberta, New-Brunswick, Manitoba, etc.) are giving it $34 000 000.

What exactly are they paying for?

 

If it's equalization payments, then the notion Quebec is paying into it is very false, since they're on the receiving end of that one. The major contributor to equalization payments these days would be Alberta.

[KaRzY6]

 

US - Australia = We whipped your ass in the War dude and for the vets.... you weren't there man, you.. weren't.. there.[/font][/color]

"We whipped your ass"

 

If I read the facts of WW1, WW2, Cold War(Vietnam, Korea etc.), Afghanistan and all the 1900-present wars correctly, the Aussies fought with the Americans. So how the f*ck could you whip our ass. In terms of military, the US and Australia have a good alliance.

 

"You weren't there"

 

I don't know which way you are saying this. If your saying that the Aussies weren't at the war, I'm 100% positive that we were there, fighting with you. Or if your saying we didn't help much (number of soldiers). Don't have big expectations from a country that has a population smaller than 5 cities in the world (including one from the USA). Not to mention all the other cities with only a couple of million people lower. We have a small army compaired to most countries with the same infulence on the world as us.

[Moonshield]

 

US - Australia = We whipped your ass in the War dude and for the vets.... you weren't there man, you.. weren't.. there.[/font][/color]

"We whipped your ass"

 

If I read the facts of WW1, WW2, Cold War(Vietnam, Korea etc.), Afghanistan and all the 1900-present wars correctly, the Aussies fought with the Americans. So how the f*ck could you whip our ass. In terms of military, the US and Australia have a good alliance.

 

"You weren't there"

 

I don't know which way you are saying this. If your saying that the Aussies weren't at the war, I'm 100% positive that we were there, fighting with you. Or if your saying we didn't help much (number of soldiers). Don't have big expectations from a country that has a population smaller than 5 cities in the world (including one from the USA). Not to mention all the other cities with only a couple of million people lower. We have a small army compaired to most countries with the same infulence on the world as us.

[Mr Rabbit]

speaking as a Brit:

we, or at least most people i know as well as myself, see america like the friend who drags us out for a night out, saying it will be legendary when it turns into a complete mess, we sometimes wonder why the f*ck we are friends with them, then we remember "oh yeah power" I personally think they are friends with us because we have been powerful, so know what to do, like advisors, do you really think someone as dumb as Bush owned Blair, no Blair was advising George on how to be the most powerful country in the world without everyone hating you, admitedly he failed.

 

I would say we get on much better with australia and canada as our relationship with them is not based on the fact they have a huge army or influence and we don't need to hold their hands making sure they don't do anything stupid, in other words they can be trusted.

Australia - what are we if not friends if every 2 years or so we play 5 test matches together over a tiny urn that makes the winning captain feel like a giant when lifting it in victory

Canada is seen as the 'child' nation who, in many ways, takes after us, and even surpassed us in terms of social rights, socially Canada is the closest thing to a utopia in the world at the moment, best country for women's rights, least racial sh*t there, and less religious fanatics, infact they predict religion will be almost gone by 2040 in canada I read somewhere - I would say we would be foolis not to be proud of canada.

 

@ gareth, nobody in UK besides complete morons sees canadians as anything like americans, canada is seen as more like righting america's wrongs for us, we look at america and go "what the f*ck are you doing?" and look at canada and say the same thing but in a completely different, more positive tone.

Edited August 14, 2012 by NateShaw92

[DeeperRed]

speaking as a Brit:

we, or at least most people i knowas well as myself, see america like the friend who drags us out for a night out, saying it will be legendary when it turns into a complete mess (like Barney on How I met Your Mother) we stick to them as they are powerful, they stick to us as we (still) have influence and cos we have the brains that they don't.

 

I would say we get on better with australia and canada as our relationship with them is not based on the fact they have a huge army or influence and we don't need to hold their hands making sure they don't do anything stupid, they can be trusted.

Australia - what are we if not friends if every 2 years or so we play 5 test matches together, we like australia a lot. We see their friendship as safe and stable

and canada is seen as the child who takes after us, and even surpassed us in terms of social rights, socially Canada is the closest thing to a utopia in the world at the moment, best country for women's rights, least racial sh*t there, and less religious fanatics, infact thye predict religion will be almost gone by 2040 in canada I read somewhere - we are proud of canada.

Your analogies are f*cking terrible.

[Mr Rabbit]

speaking as a Brit:

we, or at least most people i knowas well as myself, see america like the friend who drags us out for a night out, saying it will be legendary when it turns into a complete mess (like Barney on How I met Your Mother) we stick to them as they are powerful, they stick to us as we (still) have influence and cos we have the brains that they don't.

 

I would say we get on better with australia and canada as our relationship with them is not based on the fact they have a huge army or influence and we don't need to hold their hands making sure they don't do anything stupid, they can be trusted.

Australia - what are we if not friends if every 2 years or so we play 5 test matches together, we like australia a lot. We see their friendship as safe and stable

and canada is seen as the child who takes after us, and even surpassed us in terms of social rights, socially Canada is the closest thing to a utopia in the world at the moment, best country for women's rights, least racial sh*t there, and less religious fanatics, infact thye predict religion will be almost gone by 2040 in canada I read somewhere - we are proud of canada.

Your analogies are f*cking terrible.

and you add nothing

[DeeperRed]

Neither did you... The Senseless unfunny attempt at comedy add as much as my comment on the senseless unfunny attempt at comedy.

 

America don't side with us because they do not have brains. We side with each other because we are very similar in culture, beliefs and language. We don't hand hold them or stop them making stupid descisions, we both entered Iraq.

[Mr Rabbit]

 

Neither did you... The Senseless unfunny attempt at comedy add as much as my comment on the senseless unfunny attempt at comedy.

 

America don't side with us because they do not have brains. We side with each other because we are very similar in culture, beliefs and language. We don't hand hold them or stop them making stupid descisions, we both entered Iraq.

HA! you thought I was trying to be funny, swing and a miss. Try again, actually don't, I politely request that you should refrain from ever replying to one of my posts please, as you keep misunderstanding me, no shame in it, I mean I don't exactly talk in riddles but not many can follow my trail of thought. I will admit I am not 'normal'

 

We do hold their hands a bit, particularly with the Bush-Blair partnership, but we also make stupid decisions with them as nobody is perfect and Blair was to be honest an idiot as well with this, if it were not for us Iraq would have been as bad as Vietnam; press saying it is as bad have no clue on what they talk about, Iraq is a disaster but Vietnam was a horrendous catastrophe. Also we are not that similar culturaly, sure there are similarities, may of them very broad, but we have more in common with Canada but I would say we are at a bit of a middle ground between canada and USA, 60-40 canada, as we are far more left-wing than America, so much more it isn't even funny, and we are way less uppity about religion here, in general.

 

And again you misunderstood me, what I meant was america side with us because we have experience at being the most powerful and influential nation in the world, look up the British Empire, so it is only common sense to use us as a guidence of sorts, I know America does not have an 'empire' so to speak but as the most powerful nation who better to get to advise you as the former most powerful nation. But I don't see China going to America for advice soon as they are polar opposite cultures in too many ways.

 

 

Edited August 14, 2012 by NateShaw92

[DeeperRed]

I can reply to who the hell I want thanks. Look at your post, your analogy of USA to UK realtionship tries to in infuse humor.

 

We don't hold there hands. If you mean we tend to partake in the same activities, then yes we usually share the same stance on world politics. However, hand holding means guiding, which is not happening.

 

You keep saying I "misunderstood you" yet if you read what you put, its very easy to see you don't seem to know what point your trying to make. America don't side with us any longer due to our once great empire that hasn't been around for 40 years, 40 years in which the world has changed considerably. Were side because we share common interests and because we are more similar then you seem to think.

Edited August 14, 2012 by DeeperRed

[Mr Rabbit]

 

I can reply to who the hell I want thanks. Look at your post, your analogy of USA to UK realtionship tries to in infuse humor.

 

We don't hold there hands. If you mean we tend to partake in the same activities, then yes we usually share the same stance on world politics. However, hand holding means guiding, which is not happening.

We do though, true to a lesser extent than under Bush. If it was not for the British presense in Iraq America would have f*cked it up worse, like Vietnam level.

Where do I "try to infuse humour?"

 

Not to sound like a grammar nazi: their hands, not there

I did mean we partake in the same activities, well deduced, but we also guide them slightly, in a much more adivisory kind of role under Obama, since Bush was an incompetent buffoon. As our former colony, most prominent ally and since we were the most powerful country and they currently are (slightly) it is only common sense to give them some adivce on how to handle that, since the Cold War showed they can't handle it alone, yet, as well as the state of some of their social issues like Gay Marriage only being legal in, what is it? 6 states? or is it 8 now? I imagine that Cameron is on Obama's back to sort that sh*t out and where did Obama get his healthcare idea from? God? no it was us, the United Kingdom.

 

edit (in response to your edit): Thats kinda why I said I can understand why you misunderstand me, a lot of people do as they can't follow my trail of thought as I don't explain myself clearly, maybe I assume the way my mind works is normal, which it may not be but I don't seem to get these problems often. Point is alliances go both ways (obviously) the reason for our alliance with the States is oh so obvious but their reason for being with us is less so, I think it is because they awknowledge they need a little bit of advice on how to handle being powerful, as they did have failures in the cold war, embarassing ones, like we had in the likes of Ireland, hell they certainly need our advice in Afghanistan as the war against the Taliban is pretty much a guerilla war (probably spelt wrong) and the only country that has successfully quelled a Guerilla uprising or resisitance, that i can think of, was the UK. France and US failed in Vietnam, The old rulers of China failed in the Chinese revolution where Mao took over.

 

and most of USA and Uk similarites are broad, thinks you could say about any free nation.

Edited August 14, 2012 by NateShaw92

[EscoLehGo]

I think he and his team got the idea from Canada rather than from you guys, unless Canada got the idea from you first.

[Mr Rabbit]

 

I think he and his team got the idea from Canada rather than from you guys, unless Canada got the idea from you first.

They most likely did, not sure on the dates of when Canada started this so dunno for certain. Anyway Obama mentioned the NHS (which is British) when presenting his initial plans all those years ago. That was one reason (not the main reason) many Americans hate it, as our NHS is sometimes seen as in a mess. But he would have used Canada as an example in his speeches more as that is seen as more efficient.

[DeeperRed]

We f*cked up in Iraq just as bad as US. The reason it didn't reach Vietnam level is because it is not a convential fight (like Vietnam in its peak), but more a fight of insurgancy. It was a large f*ck up regardless, and we were just as bad. So we did not offer any restraint to it as you seem to think.

 

As for Healthcare, we were not the first nor the are we the best. We are not the reason for Obama's view on heathcare, to say so is ignornat considering many countires have it, including Canada which is much better model for US universal heathcre then UK.

 

We are not hand holding or guilding America. It's country on its own that is our most prominat alley.

[Mr Rabbit]

 

We f*cked up in Iraq just as bad as US. The reason it didn't reach Vietnam level is because it is not a convential fight (like Vietnam in its peak), but more a fight of insurgancy. It was a large f*ck up regardless, and we were just as bad. So we did not offer any restraint to it as you seem to think.

 

As for Healthcare, we were not the first nor the are we the best. We are not the reason for Obama's view on heathcare, to say so is ignornat considering many countires have it, including Canada which is much better model for US universal heathcre then UK.

 

We are not hand holding or guilding America. It's country on its own that is our most prominat alley.

See above, he mentioned the NHS in his plans, but mentioned Canada as well as an influence as they are more efficient, I don't like repeating myself mr Red. But I will explain simply. Britain was one of the main influences, but he used/uses Canada as a model of their target, as it is more efficient than the UK's by far.

Yes they are a prominent ally that is why we advise them, like you would advise a friend who is pissed out his skull not to drive.

 

The reason it has not reached Vietnam level is because it is not a guerilla war, anyway, you can see our guidence more in Afghanistan than Iraq, cos America were morons in their last prominent Guerilla war (Vietnam) and killed whole villages, they became the monsters in that war, the monsters the VC were making them out to be in their propaganda, they still do that a but now, but less so, partly learning from their own mistakes, partly guidence from Britain, and (more importantly, and prominently) British history. If you can't grasp that then there is little hope mate.

Edited August 14, 2012 by NateShaw92

[sivispacem]

Can I just interject to say that the recent changes to the US public healthcare system produce a hybrid absolutely nothing like that of the UK? I'm not sure where you get any idea of similarity from aside from the existence of a joint public-private partnership in some areas. The fledgling US system is technically far closer in execution to those of continental European states, but the still-existing private sector bias and actual execution are nothing like anything else I'm aware of in the world.

 

Also, I don't buy the idea that the UK blindly followed the US into either Iraq or Afghanistan. The reality of strategic decision-making at both military and political levels was far removed from this rather strange and convoluted common representation as the memoirs of many of those involved at both civilian and military levels indicate.

 

Also, the assertion that either Iraq or Afghanistan were not guerilla conflicts is entirely untrue. Both possess all the hallmarks of "guerilla" conflict against a military force and are only characterised as insurgencies because the term "guerilla" is outdated and poorly defined in the context of recent irregular conflicts of all kinds. The primary insurgent groups in both nations meet the classic definition of guerilla armies in that they are comprised primarily of irregular civilian forces operating undertake cover of an at least partially supportive population.

Edited August 14, 2012 by sivispacem

[Mr Rabbit]

 

Can I just interests to say that the recent changes to the US public healthcare system produce a hybrid absolutely nothing like that of the UK?

I was more talking about the old initial plan posited years ago. Since been watered down.

Plus I never said we followed them blindly, no idea where you got that. Infact I think it was better tactically (speaking for Afghanistan war) as the Americans screwed up big with the VC in their last big Guerilla war, whereas Britain managed the quell similar kinds of resistance before, barely, I forget which country.

 

I said plently of times Afghanistan was a Guerrilla war as well siv, Iraq is not exactly a Guerilla war but is not not a Guerilla war.

Afghanistan is textbook Guerialla war

iraq is less so but still is, more so since Saddam got caught and hanged

Edited August 14, 2012 by NateShaw92

[sivispacem]

Plus I never said we followed them blindly,

I don't recall ever saying you did.

[Mr Rabbit]

 

Plus I never said we followed them blindly,

I don't recall ever saying you did.

I apologise, i assumed that since you were saying that here you were refering to me saying that, as otherwise it would have no place here unless someone serious actually says that, if so then they must be rather stupid, who is stupid enough to think that?

 

anyway, lame attempt at a diversion to the topic at hand coming up:

add to my pervious that we sometimes wonder how Aussies handle the bugs, I know in big cities they show up less but Brits freak out when a bee flies near them, how do Aussies remain calm with the insects that come out there? cos even someone not afraid of spiders in britain would freeze at the sight of some of the badboys you get in Australia

 

And legit question to America, why do you spel colour, flavour and words that end in our without the 'u'? just always wondered that.

Edited August 14, 2012 by NateShaw92

[EscoLehGo]

America did technically kick ass in Vietnam in terms of large scale engagements as they would on average kill a dozen or so VC for every American troop that was killed. The war could have been won if 200,000 more troops had been committed like the military brass was requesting but the American public wasn't having that sh*t and were really fatigued with the whole thing.

[sivispacem]

 

Infact I think it was better tactically (speaking for Afghanistan war) as the Americans screwed up big with the VC in their last big Guerilla war, whereas Britain managed the quell similar kinds of resistance before, barely, I forget which country.

 

I said plently of times Afghanistan was a Guerrilla war as well siv, Iraq is not exactly a Guerilla war but is not not a Guerilla war.

Afghanistan was a strategic failure because of a lack of proper foresight, post-conflict management and limited understanding of history, geography and population demographics. The same is true of Iraq, but with religious tension added to the list. I believe you are referring to Kenya, Burma and Northern Ireland, all of which are comparable in some ways but very much "closer" to the modern/contemporary UK than Afghanistan.

 

I would be interested to see how you would argue that Iraq was anything other than a guerilla conflict after the initial invasion. Last the I checked, AQI and the various Sunni and Shia militant groups fitted the definition of guerilla armies.

[Mr Rabbit]

 

Infact I think it was better tactically (speaking for Afghanistan war) as the Americans screwed up big with the VC in their last big Guerilla war, whereas Britain managed the quell similar kinds of resistance before, barely, I forget which country.

 

I said plently of times Afghanistan was a Guerrilla war as well siv, Iraq is not exactly a Guerilla war but is not not a Guerilla war.

Afghanistan was a strategic failure because of a lack of proper foresight, post-conflict management and limited understanding of history, geography and population demographics. The same is true of Iraq, but with religious tension added to the list. I believe you are referring to Kenya, Burma and Northern Ireland, all of which are comparable in some ways but very much "closer" to the modern/contemporary UK than Afghanistan.

 

I would be interested to see how you would argue that Iraq was anything other than a guerilla conflict after the initial invasion. Last the I checked, AQI and the various Sunni and Shia militant groups fitted the definition of guerilla armies.

oh it was a failure, my point was if we had not joined, jsut left it to the Americans, it would have been 100%, a failure from the start, our involvement I think, gave it a chance, but only a chance. A chance that was not successful tactically unfortunately.

Very nice point about understanding history, been saying that for years, learn from the sh*t that happened in vietnam. And yes geography is obvious, similar with vietnam except deserts not jungles.

 

After the invasion I agree, total guerilla warfare, but while saddam was in play, not so much. I am looking at the whole campaign. Only thing I would say against it is that their style is a tad more open in their skirmishes but thats due to the environment I suppose.

 

I think I was primarily refering to something like Malaya or something like that (I know there was one there involving the communists again), may have been Burma though

 

@LehGo - Not entirely true, the tactics were inept, Westmoreland declared a war of attrition, and consequently for every VC you killed you killed many more innocents who were not VC or had nowt to do with the VC, and they got chalked up as a VC death, resulting in events like the Mylai Massacre. Plus that is how Guerilla warfare works, psychological, after the Tet offensive your bottle went, people you thought were allies were hidden VC agents, or supporters, to be honest on that day you could have quite easilly killed the whole VC but the point was you would not know it, and you would not trust the Vietnamese again. Add this to the fact it was broadcast back in the US, the psychological cost was massive, in vietnam and back home, it was then when you lost. So started the campaign to bring the troops home in the USA, support for the war fell rapidly and Nixon got elected on the promise of bringing the troops home, not winning the war, just getting them back home. Shows war is not all about casualties, that's the premise of Guerilla warfare, and when you make a mistake like Mylai that adds to their ranks, as people hear of it and join up, that's why people (correctly) say the racists of the EDL actually perpetuate the islamic terrorism of today.

What's better than torching a village of innocents and saying it was the americans? getting the Americans to do it themselves.

Edited August 14, 2012 by NateShaw92

[EscoLehGo]

Yea, victories were measured in Vietnam by the body count ratio for a long time until it became apparent that the body count really didn't mean sh*t if you would kill one guy and another would immediately spring up in his place. Plus the Americans would wage bloody battles for VC controlled bunkers, hills and compounds only to abandon the areas once the enemy was eradicated allowing them to retake the positions once the Americans left. The average American soldier really didn't know why they were there either and a large number were drafted which lead to a lot of f*ckery going on within their ranks. Drugs, rape, prostitution rings, massacres, it really makes Iraq look like smooth operation in comparison.

[Mr Rabbit]

 

Yea, victories were measured in Vietnam by the body count ratio for a long time until it became apparent that the body count really didn't mean sh*t if you would kill one guy and another would immediately spring up in his place. Plus the Americans would wage bloody battles for VC controlled bunkers, hills and compounds only to abandon the areas once the enemy was eradicated allowing them to retake the positions once the Americans left. The average American soldier really didn't know why they were there either and a large number were drafted which lead to a lot of f*ckery going on within their ranks. Drugs, rape, prostitution rings, massacres, it really makes Iraq look like smooth operation in comparison.

oh f*ck yeah, Vietnam was the biggest f*ckup America has made, ever. It made them look like racist, trigger-happy buffoons, a stereotype which still stands today. Iraq has a bit to go to provide competition, I would say ireland was one of thr UK's biggest f*ckups.

To be honest body count was not scrapped until it was too late, you should have been precise, take out nobody but the VC, as civilian deaths only helped their cause, only helped them bolster their ranks with new recruits. What annoys me is the lessons were not learnt

 

For example: Americans and Brits being racist to muslims perpetuates terrorism in the same way as in Vietnam all the sh*t Americans got up to perpetuated hate towards them and made people join the VC to kick em out. This irony I find funny, you get groups like the EDL who want to kick out Muslims for being terrorists, but their outrageous accusations and discrimination actually turns some (vast minoruty of muslms but the vast majority of domestic muslim terrorist collaborators) into that, f*cking moronic if you ask me, and some americans do the same, it's why I say History should be a compulsary GCSE in the UK (like maths, english, science) as it is important to know the mistakes of the past, to not repeat them.

And the mistakes in Afghanistan and Iraq, none as bad as Vietnam but still lessons not really learnt

 

As I have said since I was 12: "History repeats itself, because the people of the world do not listen"

 

anyway back on topic:

something to add about canada - I like how they are also quite green as well, less roads than other western countries, so less polutions form cars, quite green by Western standards, again well done canada

Edited August 14, 2012 by NateShaw92

[sivispacem]

 

oh it was a failure, my point was if we had not joined, jsut left it to the Americans, it would have been 100%, a failure from the start, our involvement I think, gave it a chance, but only a chance. A chance that was not successful tactically unfortunately.

I'd strongly dispute this. The UK and US hold equal responsibility for the strategic failures in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We have a military partnership with the US and with the other FIVE-EYES nations who were also involved in the conflict for the most part. One would imagine that one of these nations would have had the bright idea that post-conflict management, proper demographic analysis and some vague study of history- even recent history (hark back to the defeat of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s and the near-decade of tribal/religious internal conflict in Afghanistan before the establishment of the Taliban regime) could be beneficial, but no- none did. If anything, the UK is even more culpable in this failure as we're by far the most experienced nation in fighting counter-insurgency operations and should therefore have a) been able to predict this unfolding the way it did and b) been able to adapt far more quickly and with far greater operational agility to changing conflict circumstance. Thanks to Northern Ireland, the UK already had a working counter-insurgency strategy that had been tested and was applicable to some degree- it astonishes me that in the case of Afghanistan it took more than five years before we began applying it- even the US had developed a working COIN strategy and begun properly implementing it by that point.

 

 

After the invasion I agree, total guerilla warfare, but while saddam was in play, not so much.

I'll agree, but similarly the initial phase of the conflict in Afghanistan was not a counter-insurgency campaign either. Both spent many more years as COIN conflicts than they did as regular ones.

 

 

Only thing I would say against it is that their style is a tad more open in their skirmishes but thats due to the environment I suppose.

I'd somewhat disagree with this, though I can see the point you are making. The conflict in Iraq has been far more urbanised, which is atypical of many insurgency conflicts aside from Northern Ireland which should have served as the operational yard-stick. It's certainly not an "open" conflict in the operational sense (in that it is still very irregular, perhaps even more so than Afghanistan when you look at the use of things like false-flag attacks, suicide and roadside bombings, booby-traps and rocket attacks) but I think your right in one sense- that the lines between different factions are far clearer. Afghanistan has suffered from Accidental Guerilla Syndrome and due to the proliferation of Taliban supporters, sympathisers and those who believe that any "known quantity" is better than the unknown it's probably best summed up as a bit of a cluster-f*ck.

 

 

I think I was primarily refering to something like Malaya or something like that (I know there was one there involving the communists again), may have been Burma though

The Malayan Emergency- yes, a Communist insurrection and a great example of the classical "guerilla" conflict. Thought I'd missed one off the list...

[General Scrotum]

Nowadays, from what I've heard in a video on YouTube from a debate, Quebec is giving to the federal government $37 000 000 whilst all the other provinces (Alberta, New-Brunswick, Manitoba, etc.) are giving it $34 000 000.

What exactly are they paying for?

 

If it's equalization payments, then the notion Quebec is paying into it is very false, since they're on the receiving end of that one. The major contributor to equalization payments these days would be Alberta.

Oh, nevermind. I've missheard that part.

[Thezez]

 

...

US - New Zealand = Lord of The Rings and .... erm

...

 

 

This x1000. I'm married to an American so every time I head over for a visit it's either:

Lord of the Rings

Flight of the Conchords

More sheep than people

or "Oh, you're from New Zealand, I have a cousin in Scotland!"

 

Also one guy who claimed he had visited New Zealand, and fondly remembered all the kangaroos. (There are no kangaroos here.)

 

I feel like we need to put out a FAQ.

[Icarus]

Nowadays, from what I've heard in a video on YouTube from a debate, Quebec is giving to the federal government $37 000 000 whilst all the other provinces (Alberta, New-Brunswick, Manitoba, etc.) are giving it $34 000 000.

What exactly are they paying for?

 

If it's equalization payments, then the notion Quebec is paying into it is very false, since they're on the receiving end of that one. The major contributor to equalization payments these days would be Alberta.

Oh, nevermind. I've missheard that part.

Looking at the numbers again, I'm not sure it's equalization payments, since they're on the order of billions of dollars, not millions. If you ever find out what they're referring to, let me know. I'm quite curious.

[Shiva.]

I know I'm not right but I think they are paying money to stay with Canada. Sorry if I'm wrong but I'm curious to know.