EyeFetch.com Discussion Forums

Site Statistics

11/20/2009 7:38:46 PM
Active Users:	4,976
Members:	30,140
Images:	937,462

Search Images
Site Navigator

Site Announcements

4/12/2008 10:34:06 PM

Site Maintenance This Weekend! View Details

7/3/2005 5:59:34 AM

Today we have released our new PhotoBlog feature! Create your own PhotoBlog here for free...

EyeFetch Forums -

< Prev 1 2

	Author	Thread
	TimThigpen Jasper, FL 11/7/2009 1:09:47 PM	Paul did you get news the last 2 weeks when American soldiers were killed in Afghanistan? because Americans have died in the past few weeks as well.... No you likely didnt, it wasnt even really covered here that much either, just mentioned on the news of the day. My point is that the two things are seperate. Not even american deaths in afghanistan are reported as heavily as this mass murder was, and we just had the deadliest month ever in Afghanistan for american soldiers. The reason it was reported so heavily is because of the nature of the crime- A mass shooting on american soil where over 40 people were shot. If such an incident took place in down town London I bet you money the news would have been all over it as well. We have lost far more people in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars than the UK has. People die in war. Its what happens. This is not "america's" war....it should be the war of any free people who hope to preserve western values. I will tell you what will happen. Pull the few UK troops out of afghanistan that are there, and then let America pull out as well, and watch what happens. Before long Al-qaeda will be bringing the war to your buses, trains, and population centers in the UK. When the blow up a bus and kill 30 people at one time, with one bomb, how will you respond then? The price we are paying now is far less than it would be if we allowed them to bring the war to our soil, and trust me, they want to do just that.
	SianLewis Cardiff 11/7/2009 2:08:53 PM	Ok, not that it's a competition, but you've said a few times before Tim about how America has more troops in Afghanistan than the UK. So, I thought you might find these stats interesting. The US has 38,000 troops in Afghanistan The UK had 9000 troops in Afghanistan So in terms of numbers, obviously there are more American troops out there. However, if you look at the populations of both countries and work out what percentage of the population (ie soldiers) who are out there, the US has 0.12% whilst the UK has 0.14%. 9000 soldiers might seem like much to you given the size of the country you live in, but for our tiny island, it's a lot. But it really is quite irrelevant who has the most troops out there. The fact of the matter is that soldiers are dying almost every day due to a war that we should not be fighting. Britain came under attack only after we went in Afghanistan. There is this great pretense that we're there due to the Taliban and for humanitarian purposes. That's pure, unadulterated rubbish. If it was due to terrorist activity, we would have troops in Spain looking for the basque seperatist group ETA. If it was humanitarian, we'd have been in South Africa when Mugabe was killing hundreds of people in the run up the elections. What would happen in the UK pulled out? There would be 9000 families who could live their lives without waiting for that dreaded knock on the door. There has been fighting in the middle east for thousands of years, you only have to read the bible to know that. It is never going to stop, regardless of who goes in or what they do. What I can't grasp though is why it always has to come down to a competition between who has more people there, who has lost more soldiers etc etc. I think we would do well to pay heed to Louis' wise words.
	Heathermary 11/7/2009 2:23:51 PM	Just one little point Sian....Mugabe is president in ZIMBABWE and NOT SOUTH AFRICA regards Heather
	SianLewis Cardiff 11/7/2009 2:47:44 PM	Heathermary said: Just one little point Sian....Mugabe is president in ZIMBABWE and NOT SOUTH AFRICA regards Heather D'oh, of course he is!! Thanks Heather.
	PaulTyrer 11/7/2009 4:03:44 PM	TimThigpen said: When the blow up a bus and kill 30 people at one time, with one bomb, how will you respond then? Tim, Its already happened! And please dont forget that we in the UK went through almost 30 years of IRA bombs all over the UK which killed many innocent people (Warrington, London, Brighton bombings), and the IRA were funded from the USA...... I personally was in London when the IRA fired a pipe bomb from the Mall into 10 Downing Street
	TimThigpen Jasper, FL 11/7/2009 4:31:41 PM	SianLewis said: Ok, not that it's a competition, but you've said a few times before Tim about how America has more troops in Afghanistan than the UK. So, I thought you might find these stats interesting. The US has 38,000 troops in Afghanistan The UK had 9000 troops in Afghanistan So in terms of numbers, obviously there are more American troops out there. However, if you look at the populations of both countries and work out what percentage of the population (ie soldiers) who are out there, the US has 0.12% whilst the UK has 0.14%. 9000 soldiers might seem like much to you given the size of the country you live in, but for our tiny island, it's a lot. But it really is quite irrelevant who has the most troops out there. The fact of the matter is that soldiers are dying almost every day due to a war that we should not be fighting. Britain came under attack only after we went in Afghanistan. There is this great pretense that we're there due to the Taliban and for humanitarian purposes. That's pure, unadulterated rubbish. If it was due to terrorist activity, we would have troops in Spain looking for the basque seperatist group ETA. If it was humanitarian, we'd have been in South Africa when Mugabe was killing hundreds of people in the run up the elections. What would happen in the UK pulled out? There would be 9000 families who could live their lives without waiting for that dreaded knock on the door. There has been fighting in the middle east for thousands of years, you only have to read the bible to know that. It is never going to stop, regardless of who goes in or what they do. What I can't grasp though is why it always has to come down to a competition between who has more people there, who has lost more soldiers etc etc. I think we would do well to pay heed to Louis' wise words. The numbers were used to make a bigger point. Please follow the post in context of what I said. Whether we should be fighting the war or not is personal opinion. It still had nothing to do with the original thread topic.
	SianLewis Cardiff 11/7/2009 4:38:13 PM	TimThigpen said: SianLewis said: Ok, not that it's a competition, but you've said a few times before Tim about how America has more troops in Afghanistan than the UK. So, I thought you might find these stats interesting. The US has 38,000 troops in Afghanistan The UK had 9000 troops in Afghanistan So in terms of numbers, obviously there are more American troops out there. However, if you look at the populations of both countries and work out what percentage of the population (ie soldiers) who are out there, the US has 0.12% whilst the UK has 0.14%. 9000 soldiers might seem like much to you given the size of the country you live in, but for our tiny island, it's a lot. But it really is quite irrelevant who has the most troops out there. The fact of the matter is that soldiers are dying almost every day due to a war that we should not be fighting. Britain came under attack only after we went in Afghanistan. There is this great pretense that we're there due to the Taliban and for humanitarian purposes. That's pure, unadulterated rubbish. If it was due to terrorist activity, we would have troops in Spain looking for the basque seperatist group ETA. If it was humanitarian, we'd have been in South Africa when Mugabe was killing hundreds of people in the run up the elections. What would happen in the UK pulled out? There would be 9000 families who could live their lives without waiting for that dreaded knock on the door. There has been fighting in the middle east for thousands of years, you only have to read the bible to know that. It is never going to stop, regardless of who goes in or what they do. What I can't grasp though is why it always has to come down to a competition between who has more people there, who has lost more soldiers etc etc. I think we would do well to pay heed to Louis' wise words. The numbers were used to make a bigger point. Please follow the post in context of what I said. Whether we should be fighting the war or not is personal opinion. It still had nothing to do with the original thread topic. But Tim, you've said it time after time that you have more troops there than we done and it's starting to wear a little thin. Trying to belittle the UK troops isn't in keeping with the thread you started so you're as guilty as the next person of making a comment not related to your original post.
	Sirpete North Wales. 11/7/2009 4:45:11 PM	It's quality and not quantity that counts!
	TimThigpen Jasper, FL 11/7/2009 4:45:49 PM	SianLewis said: TimThigpen said: SianLewis said: Ok, not that it's a competition, but you've said a few times before Tim about how America has more troops in Afghanistan than the UK. So, I thought you might find these stats interesting. The US has 38,000 troops in Afghanistan The UK had 9000 troops in Afghanistan So in terms of numbers, obviously there are more American troops out there. However, if you look at the populations of both countries and work out what percentage of the population (ie soldiers) who are out there, the US has 0.12% whilst the UK has 0.14%. 9000 soldiers might seem like much to you given the size of the country you live in, but for our tiny island, it's a lot. But it really is quite irrelevant who has the most troops out there. The fact of the matter is that soldiers are dying almost every day due to a war that we should not be fighting. Britain came under attack only after we went in Afghanistan. There is this great pretense that we're there due to the Taliban and for humanitarian purposes. That's pure, unadulterated rubbish. If it was due to terrorist activity, we would have troops in Spain looking for the basque seperatist group ETA. If it was humanitarian, we'd have been in South Africa when Mugabe was killing hundreds of people in the run up the elections. What would happen in the UK pulled out? There would be 9000 families who could live their lives without waiting for that dreaded knock on the door. There has been fighting in the middle east for thousands of years, you only have to read the bible to know that. It is never going to stop, regardless of who goes in or what they do. What I can't grasp though is why it always has to come down to a competition between who has more people there, who has lost more soldiers etc etc. I think we would do well to pay heed to Louis' wise words. The numbers were used to make a bigger point. Please follow the post in context of what I said. Whether we should be fighting the war or not is personal opinion. It still had nothing to do with the original thread topic. But Tim, you've said it time after time that you have more troops there than we done and it's starting to wear a little thin. Trying to belittle the UK troops isn't in keeping with the thread you started so you're as guilty as the next person of making a comment not related to your original post. No one is belittling the UK troops lol...Here again you have MISSED the point of my post. As I said 5 minutes ago, I used the numbers to make a point. Focus on what the point of the post was about. You are missing it entirely. Comparing this mass murder to war casualties was kind of silly anyways. We shouldnt even be having this stupid debate, there is no point to it.
	SianLewis Cardiff 11/7/2009 4:59:03 PM	TimThigpen said: SianLewis said: TimThigpen said: SianLewis said: Ok, not that it's a competition, but you've said a few times before Tim about how America has more troops in Afghanistan than the UK. So, I thought you might find these stats interesting. The US has 38,000 troops in Afghanistan The UK had 9000 troops in Afghanistan So in terms of numbers, obviously there are more American troops out there. However, if you look at the populations of both countries and work out what percentage of the population (ie soldiers) who are out there, the US has 0.12% whilst the UK has 0.14%. 9000 soldiers might seem like much to you given the size of the country you live in, but for our tiny island, it's a lot. But it really is quite irrelevant who has the most troops out there. The fact of the matter is that soldiers are dying almost every day due to a war that we should not be fighting. Britain came under attack only after we went in Afghanistan. There is this great pretense that we're there due to the Taliban and for humanitarian purposes. That's pure, unadulterated rubbish. If it was due to terrorist activity, we would have troops in Spain looking for the basque seperatist group ETA. If it was humanitarian, we'd have been in South Africa when Mugabe was killing hundreds of people in the run up the elections. What would happen in the UK pulled out? There would be 9000 families who could live their lives without waiting for that dreaded knock on the door. There has been fighting in the middle east for thousands of years, you only have to read the bible to know that. It is never going to stop, regardless of who goes in or what they do. What I can't grasp though is why it always has to come down to a competition between who has more people there, who has lost more soldiers etc etc. I think we would do well to pay heed to Louis' wise words. The numbers were used to make a bigger point. Please follow the post in context of what I said. Whether we should be fighting the war or not is personal opinion. It still had nothing to do with the original thread topic. But Tim, you've said it time after time that you have more troops there than we done and it's starting to wear a little thin. Trying to belittle the UK troops isn't in keeping with the thread you started so you're as guilty as the next person of making a comment not related to your original post. No one is belittling the UK troops lol...Here again you have MISSED the point of my post. As I said 5 minutes ago, I used the numbers to make a point. Focus on what the point of the post was about. You are missing it entirely. Comparing this mass murder to war casualties was kind of silly anyways. We shouldnt even be having this stupid debate, there is no point to it. Tim, I've not missed the point, I see what you are trying to say but when you say something like the post below, it does come across that you are trying to belittle the UK. It doesn't make it any more worse for you if you've lost more soldiers than we have, so why make that point? And why use the word 'few'? We have lost far more people in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars than the UK has. People die in war. Its what happens. This is not "america's" war....it should be the war of any free people who hope to preserve western values. I will tell you what will happen. Pull the few UK troops out of afghanistan that are there, and then let America pull out as well, and watch what happens. Before long Al-qaeda will be bringing the war to your buses, trains, and population centers in the UK. When the blow up a bus and kill 30 people at one time, with one bomb, how will you respond then? The price we are paying now is far less than it would be if we allowed them to bring the war to our soil, and trust me, they want to do just that. Anyway, right now I am watching the service of rememberance for all the UK soldiers who have lost their lives in both world wars and Iraq and Afghanistan and that kind of puts things into perspective and makes you realise that silly debates like this are a waste of time. Seeing the footage of injured soldiers make me so glad right now that I am sat in a warm house, safe and sound, with all my limbs and perfect vision.

< Prev 1 2

Hide this Ad!
Upgrade Your Account

Hide this Ad!
Upgrade Your Account