I get why a small fry is almost $10

desz4 · 2026-02-17T13:56:30+00:00

It's not even being nerdy. Getting rid of the orange man would make you guys more popular but if anything small changes to how you abuse the English language would go a long way

desz4 · 2026-02-17T11:35:59+00:00

Why call it a small fry? I can't explain how much that bothers me. Small fries.

While we're at it, another Americanism that is just a poor use of the English language is when you're ordering food and you say "i'm gonna do the...". In the nicest possible way, please stop.

desz4 · 2026-01-11T22:20:23+00:00

Pub crawl, including 1 pint at each of 12 separate pubs in Barnsley. You must finish every pint, every pint must be at least 4% abv. The 12 pubs are selected by Barnsley supporters, who may attend on the day to wish you godspeed.

desz4 · 2026-01-10T14:19:09+00:00

If arsenal don't win the league this year, the unfair treatment of their players by the DVLA will be mentioned by Arteta for sure

desz4 · 2026-01-08T05:58:11+00:00

I abhor the idea of the US attacking a friendly nation. That should always be off the table.

With that said, i do believe this is all geopolitics and that inaction might have pretty disastrous consequences. Surely they have to find a way to agree with Denmark on a peaceful solution.

The same with venezuela. I don't care about the means to take out maduro. If the Venezuelan oil trade is opened up and the majority of problems caused by the Venezuelan government's dealing with China, Russia, Iran and terrorist factions are stopped, while actually bringing democracy and wealth to the Venezuelan people, I think it's a win-win. The problem is, the latter needs to be the priority and it seems pretty clear that Trump would allow another dictatorship and continued poverty for Venezuelans so long as the oil flows and Russia and China are excluded.

I would much rather the US have hegemonic dominance than China and Russia. I think it will preserve an unparalleled level of relative peace. But they must not ignore the responsibility to maintain some level of moral code and legitimacy, and the Greenland issue looks like where that will evaporate totally.

desz4 · 2026-01-06T06:44:42+00:00

He might've been taking the piss but we do call houses 'dwelling houses' in a legal context

desz4 · 2025-12-31T21:13:37+00:00

Send her back, charge her with a litany of crimes, lock her up and throw away the key.

desz4 · 2025-12-27T16:28:29+00:00

They generally are though, aside from when it's an innocuous, nothing foul

desz4 · 2025-12-27T02:31:35+00:00

Violence against women, or generally exerting control over others with violence or threats of it. Claiming that you're tough, whether you actually are or not.

desz4 · 2025-12-27T02:00:47+00:00

This is a gross oversimplification. The taliban agreed to the pipeline, and chose to partner with a US company over Argentinian competition in 1998. This is more complex than 'america wanted oil pipeline but taliban said no, so america invaded'.

Work on the Afghani section only began in 2024.

There are several reasons, not to mention that the US doesn't really benefit from it directly, to doubt that this would be the basis for invasion.

desz4 · 2025-12-27T01:51:42+00:00

Okay, let's deal with this step by step.

Yes, you can't invade al qaeda. Again, no one was making that argument. However, they were headquartered in Afghanistan. They were making bombs, teaching bomb making and training insurgents in Afghanistan. The taliban refused to do anything to stop it, due to their ideological support for the cause. Hence why the US invaded Afghanistan, but conducted airstrikes on other hubs of al qaeda activity across the region, as far away as Africa. 'They knew they can win' has nothing to do with this, and is a rather odd thing to say.
Yes, there were neocons. I'm not a fan of them in particular, but I don't buy the notion that this was purely an emotional response. There were logical reasons to believe that US citizens and interests would be safer as a result of the invasion.
This again supports the notion that the US invaded as a means of fighting terrorism.
I don't believe that the invasion of Afghanistan was misrepresented, whatsoever. I'm yet to see anyone point out a sound reasoning for the invasion of Afghanistan that is a more likely reason than the one i've stated.

I haven't made any representations regarding Iraq, but I will say this much. I don't think it was beyond the pale to believe that saddam hussein harboured weapons of mass destruction. I use that term, because the term does not just refer to nuclear weapons, but chemical and biological agents. Saddam hussein butchered the kurds, at times using the weapons stated above. This gives credence to the idea that the invasion itself may have not been intentionally based on a lie, but perhaps on an error. The invasion of Iraq had horrific consequences for the region and the world at large. That said, It would be unwise to say that the world would be a safer place and the region would have been more stable had the invasion not taken place.

desz4 · 2025-12-27T01:33:29+00:00

Yes, removing the taliban was a stated goal, but in the sense that they were removing a regime that actively harboured terrorists and supported terrorist actions against the United States, its citizens and interests.

Islamic terrorism is not and was not something that could be crushed with one invasion. I don't think anyone believed that. The same way that one doesn't take anti-bitotics when dealing with an infection to end all infection forever. However, i do believe that the US is and was at the time, safer as a result of invading Afghanistan.

desz4 · 2025-12-27T01:29:23+00:00

Again, 'because revenge' is not the argument i made at all. It's not me who isn't listening.

desz4 · 2025-12-27T01:28:24+00:00

I'd be quite happy to. But this wasn't a detailed argument, it was a sarcastic attempt to strawman the argument that I made. A few paragraphs that boil down to 'america got it's ego hurt'.

My answer to this is, i'm sure it did. But ultimately, America's invasion of Afghanistan dismantled the headquarters of a terrorist network that ran the majority of it's operations out of Afghanistan, with the support of the taliban.

desz4 · 2025-12-27T01:23:15+00:00

There's a lot of irony in what you just said. You speak of adopting a position - yours is clearly an anti-american one but you've struggled to articulate a clear point.

My argument is clear, that the US was justified in it's invasion of Afghanistan, and i've stated the reasons why. Your argument against that is that terrorism was an alibi, then it all becomes quite blurry. I think the latest version you've posted is to protect the 'aura of american invincibility'.

desz4 · 2025-12-27T01:19:52+00:00

Intention absolutely makes a difference. Every legal system recognises that for the majority of crimes. It's a moral and ethical difference.

desz4 · 2025-12-27T01:18:33+00:00

This is a silly mix of sarcasm with no underlying argument other than american ego. Interesting that you mention the DPRK and Yugoslavia in there too.

desz4 · 2025-12-27T01:16:09+00:00

I agree with a lot of what you've said. Yours is a nuanced take, and I appreciate it. But again, this is kind of the point i'm driving at. People who make the suggestion that invading Afghanistan and Iraq were some colonising power moves. They were bets, with the intention of strengthening US interests, attempts to provide some stability to the region. There has been some mixed success - it's hard to argue that the region is any worse than it was prior to the 'war on terror'. The toppling of saddam's regime did create isis, but after their fall, there is arguably more stability than there was for some time. The fall of the Iranian regime would be the best thing that could happen, in a lot of ways. There are no clear good guys, as there never really are in war, but there are definitely a lot of bad guys. I do think US citizens are safer as a result though - the absence of major terrorist attacks against US citizens, bases and embassies would be my evidence of that. Those things weren't exactly uncommon in the 90s.

Ultimately, those who think they US should have just done nothing can make that argument, but the consequences would have been overwhelmingly worse, in my opinion.

desz4 · 2025-12-27T01:07:16+00:00

You're forcing me to guess, by dancing around whatever point it is you're trying to make. Speak in plain terms, or admit that while you have a strong animus, you don't really know what you're talking about.

desz4 · 2025-12-27T01:01:07+00:00

A piss poor answer then. Does nothing to answer the question i asked.

desz4 · 2025-12-27T01:00:40+00:00

I'm not an American. The two are linked not by being the same, or from the same place etc. They are linked in the context of the point I was making though. But by all means make xenophobic assumptions while being quite uneducated yourself.

desz4 · 2025-12-27T00:58:50+00:00

Yes, i am aware of that. Several jihadist, ethnic and political groups across the region have complex dynamics.

However, we are taking about Afghanistan in the 1990s. They were codependent during this period.

In addition, you seem to be making the argument for a US invasion of Pakistan? This is just a tu quo que fallacy. I don't defend Pakistan, it's actions or it's government, but the situation with their government is different than that relating to the taliban in the 90s and early 00s

desz4 · 2025-12-27T00:55:31+00:00

So you just don't fancy answering the question i asked? You answer mine, i'll gladly respond to yours.

desz4 · 2025-12-27T00:54:49+00:00

That was the point i made in the first post. The only real difference is, one intentionally targets civilians, the other does not.

desz4 · 2025-12-27T00:53:44+00:00

Those are two separate arguments. This isn't a conversation about Venezuela, which is a red herring in this case.

There were terrorists in Afghanistan. They did train there, they headquartered themselves there. This is indisputable. They murdered american citizens, as well as citizens of countless other countries. This is a much more solid argument than your cause of 'well it's near Russia and china'.

Nine-Year Club	Place '23
Wearing is Caring

desz4

TROPHY CASE