South african born, Left to live in london at 11 now in the royal marines at 19. Proud that my home nation has a good army and should be fighting with us in afghanistan.
@yeahbwoyyy Bullshit! the afghan and iraq conflicts have political intentions such as money and control, they are not real conflicts - freedom is an illusion created by bush and blair, its all about the money kid
the 7/7 photos clearly show the bomb came from under the train and not inside.I dont deny extremism but it's not as extensive as the politicians say it is
@Hartsock2008 Don't kid yourself, the SADF was a well polished machine oiled daily and there was respect. It became a turd, then it was polished and became a polished turd to appear better. You join the SANDF you join a UNION go on strike when your pay is kak and disregard for rank. Speak to people (white if you white) in the army get their opinion. Otherwise go French legion and be respected, they can fight for SA too when the time comes.
@Hartsock2008 Hey there chief. You're joining your army for the right reasons. I respect that. Don't be in such a rush to die though, that'll happen soon enough. Good luck to you.
recruit them all. teach them discipline and skills needed for the workplace and violance will decrease. we need schooling, not people bashing what is and what was. we are south african and proud. when we win at rugby...oh we are all patriotic...but thats not patriotic just to support us when we are ontop. sadf was great, sandf will be better. positive attitutde and take action
The SANDF will never be any good as long as it is full of undisciplined poor quality elements from old black militias. Without the white officer corps and nco corps South Africa's military is all but finished. Positive thinking is good but one still has to deal with reality.
Japan only maintained its independence and became a major power through its total and thorough adoption of almost every aspect of Western Civilization under the Meiji Emperor. China practically lost its independence to Europeans by the start of the 20th Century, and today is only gradually recovering from Communist mismanagement. South Korea only became successful through adoption of Western Democracy. Its European methods that I am talking about, and Asia stayed independent by adopting them.
I put it to you that China was a large and successful empire for a long time before being defeated by European powers. Aside from the 19th and 20th centuries, they've always been a major contender.
It's also interesting to note that you've been forced to change your position to state that it is European methods that are important, not European people being in charge, as you initally stated.
European methods derive from European people and European society so there is nothing significant about, unless you took the usual step of screaming 'racist' upon seeing a comment stating that black-run Africa has gone to the dogs. China is an Empire that fell to the Mongols and fell almost entirely to foreign influence in the 20th Century. Chinese society was not up to competing with the society of the Western European empires. Western Europe has never been conquered, and colonized the world.
History is advanced through warfare more than through any other single factor. The West has proved dominant in warfare. That is something to be proud of. The West does not have a monopoly on armies, they have just produced the best ones. Violence is not a European invention. However they have also proved by far best able to efficiently administer territories under their control.
See now, it's been interesting to watch your thought processes, as far as I can follow them. You seem to be subscribing to some curious propositions.
1: History needs to be "advanced". In other words, we need wars to have something to fill the history books. Curious.
2: Europe is an monolithic entity. Everything from Plato to Nato, via the British Empire and Auschwitz is all the same, and used the same 'methods'. Demonstrably false.
The Huns did not conquer the Roman Empire; the Hunnic Confederation collapsed before the Roman Empire in the West fell. The Eastern portion of the Roman Empire survived the collapse, due to military factors and greater wealth in the 5th Century A.D. that enabled it to continue to maintain its military strength. I think that history will show you that defeat in warfare is the fastest way for any civilization or nation to collapse. Egypt fell to Persian and Macedonian supremacy.
Defeat in warfare isn't always a fast track to a civilization's collapse, but rather is a temporary setback. Take Germany for instance. Probably around 70% of the country was bombed beyond all recognition. But by the late 60s was Europe's leading economic power again.
Western civilization is nearing collapse not because we are in danger of being militarily defeated by anyone, but rather because of our demographics.
Germany survived and recovered by subordination to the victors. Germany was one of the world's greatest powers until 1945. Germany is in real power terms a non-entity outside the EU today. I agree with your second point, but ultimately military defeat is what would seal a Western collapse, not simply disappearing in peace.
A civilization doesn't need to survive in terms of 'real-power' alone. A number of countries thrive because their niche is economics and not necessarily war fighting. While I agree it plays a part, I once again disagree that military conquest spells the end of a civilization, although it can mean drastic changes. There's no world power remotely capable of conquering the West - but the power of the womb (of third-world immigrants) will, if left unchecked, conquer the West. That will be our doom.
Countries that are economically strong survive through their alliances and the military superiority of their allies. Economic powers can not ignore their defenses. As to your other comment it doesn't make sense; if the west were militarily conquered it would spell our doom; western civilization would cease to exist.
As I've said before. There are many, many examples of peoples, countries being militarily conquered without it spelling the end of their unique civilizations. Ukraine has been occupied for most of the existence of Ukrainian people. Finland too. But the people survived - they were insufficiently killed or displaced. Think of the centuries of foreign occupation endured by Serbia. Serbian civilization never came to an end because there were always Serbs willing to carry on its legacy
The Ukraine was conquered by another very similar Slavic civilization; Russia. Finland has never been a civilization; it is too sparsely populated, and has never really been colonized. Serbia was never totally conquered because Turks did not extensively colonize in the Balkans. Nevertheless the large numbers of Muslims in the Balkans permanently transformed the map of the Balkans. However these are individual countries; not civilizations in and of themselves.
Finland was never colonized? Perhaps you should look more closely at the history of Finland and ask yourself where Finland-Swedes come from? Being sparsely populated isn't a measure of civilization - I realise the definition of civilization is something that's debated - but the Finns and Ukrainians built cities, created art, literature, drama, write (although not always). Each of them were occupied by others for almost as long as they existed. They still thrive.
"Serbia was never totally conquered because Turks did not extensively colonize the Balkans" -
Correct, lending weight to my argument that civilizations, peoples, cultures do not disappear with military conquest alone - they can even be occupied for centuries. It takes a concerted effort to kill and displace the original inhabitants for it to truly disappear. Serbia is no longer an empire, but as a Balkan civilization it lives on, except in Kosovo - where Serbs were displaced and killed.
The manner of the Turkish conquest and hegemony does not change the fact that the Serbs were defeated in war, and thus lost their ability to defend and maintain their civilization. Serbia could have been fully colonized had that been Ottoman policy, which it was not.
The Serbs lost their Empire but they certainly didn't lose their civilization - civilizations live on through its people - where Serb people are cleansed (most of Kosovo, for example), their civilization ceases to exist. Thankfully, Serbs were not displaced by Turks, Germans, Albanians or anyone else in most of the rest of their territory.
A legacy that, regardless of whether or not it was an independent state with its own strong-arm institutions was able to be passed on.
Think of a relevant Southern African example, since this is a SANDF video. Think of Rhodesia. Rhodesian civilization didn't fall because it was conquered - it fell because the people who created and sustained European-style civilization in that part of Southern Africa (whites) were displaced and killed.
Exactly. It was conquered. The whites were winning the war, but when their leadership surrendered that came to nought; it counts as a military defeat. We all saw what happened to European civilization in Zimbabwe. You have just admitted that they fell because they failed to be victorious on the battlefield. Those are the consequences.
Not at all. Zimbabwe went on for a number of years to be a very successful country compared to other civilizations in Africa. Military conquest didn't displace white people, although it certainly displaced some - Robert Mugabe's racist land reforms displaced white people. ANC Terrorism didn't displace whites in South Africa - but a hostile environment is displacing them now.
I did not say that military defeat immediately led to a cataclysmic upheaval. But the fact is that the uprooting of whites in southern Africa was due to the ultimate success of black insurgencies. The unfortunate fall of Rhodesia spelt the end of the country's prosperity, regardless of the fact that white farmers remained (and some still remain). War may not immediately lead to decisive change, but its effects are the most important on the historical stage.
and I never said military defeat is a tea party. But if whites remained in large numbers in Zimbabwe today, it would probably be a fairly prosperous state. Militaries help preserve peoples, but ultimately it's the people that count. It's what short-sighted black leaders in Southern Africa forget. Whites built their countries, not them.
The whites were driven out. After they lost military and political control of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe they lost the ability to maintain their communities and nationhood. Militaries are made up of people; they are an integral part of a civilization. Your last sentence is correct.
Ultimately you are a) failing to see the clear difference between immigration and colonization, b) assuming that armies and warfare are not part of the civilizations they defend or of vital importance in their continuity and prosperity and c) failing to recognize that the survival of aspects of a culture is not the same as the survival of a civilization. In Ireland, for example the Irish people and language survived 700 years of British rule, but their civilization changed beyond recognition.
Ultimately you're failing to see that immigration IS colonization and that both displace populations. European immigration to the Americas WAS colonization. Islamic immigration to Europe now IS colonization. Unless you count black gantsters bullets, Europe will be conquered and changed immeasureably without a shot fired. Displacement by colonization and not by military defeat. You clearly over-estimate the importance of militaries when it comes to maintaining civilizations.
You are wrong here. Colonization is when a population moves in, exerting military control and maintaining its independence. Immigration does not qualify. European immigration to America was colonization because they maintained political, economic, military and societal independence from the natives, and supplanted and defeated them. Islamic immigration to Europe does not exert any control, and islamic immigrants can not remove authority from the home governments.
Why don't you tell that to the ethnic Serb population of Kosovo. Or to Mexicans who lost Texas through Anglo-American immigration into the area.
You think Europeans will still control their countries once non-white immigrants and their descendants become the majority? You're even more naive than I thought.
In the context of the current international system, unchecked non-white and Muslim immigration to the West IS COLONIZATION.
Civilization is often used as a broader term to define culture and there is debate as to what exactly constitutes a civilization. One thing is for certain - a civilization doesn't need to be an independent state society or an Empire to be have that title. And it certainly doesn't need a military. A civilization needs a group of people (usually of common origin) who produce a complex culture, language, practice a certain amount of economic stratification, agriculture and urbanization.
When a civilization or nation loses its ability to militarily defend itself its survival or extinction is in the hands of foreign military powers. Over time loss of independence will inevitably erode and ultimately supplant any civilization. That is why military superiority is important; nations or civilizations that are successful in warfare thrive, and those that fail do not.
Western Europe was militarily successful in conquering the Third-World. The supposed superiority opened the door for reverse colonization.
When Britain, France and the Netherlands become majority non-white somewhere around 2050, a number of peoples around the world (even in Europe) will continue to have their own countries run by their own peoples because they either did not want to, or simply could not, flaunt their militaries to one another. That's the paradox of what you're saying.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Your paragraph made no sense. Your judgement is flawed because you don't know the difference between colonization as opposed to mere immigration. They are not the same thing. My essential point is this; civilizations do not thrive and nations do not survive that can not defend their territory against foreign threats. Colonists are not within the control of the indigenous population they supplant; they militarily occupy their holdings.
I know the difference in dictionary definitions between colonization and immigration. You obviously have trouble understanding what I'm saying, maybe I wasn't clear. I'm saying that current immigration trends, the one-way flow of people from South to North - especially the movement of former colonial peoples to their former "oppressor" nations is tantamount to reverse colonization and THAT is how European nations and the West as a greater "umbrella civilization" will fall.
That is to miss the difference between colonization and immigration. Colonists do not assimilate, remain separate and independent from the indigenous population, and retain foreign allegiances and usually military/political independence from the indigenous administrative structure. None of those things apply to reverse immigration, which is creating a multicultural melting pot within the structure of the European nation.
As a military member, I understand the importance of a capable military. But as a student of political science and demography, I've personally come to the conclusion that the most important factor in civilization death is not military defeat, but displacement of the people who created and sustained the civilization. I believe military might has far less to do with preserving civilization than you suggest. I'll leave that as my final word. It's nice to have civil debates. Happy New Year.
No, they will become majority non-white due to very short-sighted and lax immigration regimes, and a liberal agenda that favors the notion of multiculturalism as being somehow beneficial. Such countries would not have fallen because they were weak, but because they were badly governed. Also European colonization was less important in the 'reverse colonization' than improvements in transportation on land, sea and air. Immigration is not the same as colonization; colonists do not assimilate.
Irish civilization was undoubtedly changed - but just because they were conquered in no way exempted them from the fact they were and still are a unique civilization with particularities unique to them. French Canada was forever changed by the 1759 conquest - but it was far from the end. Even under British rule, the French-speaking inhabitants of Quebec continued to populate the countryside, build cities, produce works of history, art and literature, etc. All without a unique state or military.
The Irish are different in some ways from the English, but their culture and civilization that existed prior to their conquest no longer tangible exists. French Canada was not a civilization, but an extension of France.
Franco-Americans (whether French-Canadian or Acadian) are a distinct culture in the Americas, which depending on the definition chosen of civilization, consitutes one - especially taking into consideration other civilizations or their extensions in the Americas. "Latin American", "Germanic or Anglo-American", "Afro-Carribbean". People simply rarely mention "Franco-American" territories because they exist in Anglo-Majority countries. Their distinctiveness remains, but I see again we have trouble
coming up with a commonly held definition of civilization. There are a number of University faculties in Canada dedicated to French-Canadian and Acadian civilization and are called such. Both French-Canadians and Acadians would reject simply being extensions of French civilization.
They are. The very title 'French Canadian' implies that they are part of French civilization. French Canada does not have enough distinguish characteristics to be termed a separate civilization, whatever it may think of itself. It is distinct from British Canada though.
In the context of the Americas, it is distinct. It is an extension of French civilization but not only so. French Canadians and Acadians have had radically different developments from France and from each other since the conquest and deportation and couldn't possibly be simply grouped as "French", as if they have no defining characteristics of their own.
I simply gave you an example of a culture, nation, people - civilization if you will, that thrived under foreign occupation contrary to your
Irish culture and Irish civilization are not the same thing. The cultures may survive after military conquest, but the civilizations do not. The Irish civilization that was finally conquered in 1603 is consigned to the pages of history. Much in Irish culture and temperament survived and plays its part in the current Irish State, but every part of that State's structure and administration is based on Britain. A culture can survive conquest, a civilization falls with the conquest.
Military conquest sometimes (but not always) will be the lynchpin between a country or civilization's survival and death. I'm not denying that - I'm just saying the far bigger factor is displacement through colonization. At current trends, the West will die. And will probably die without much of a fight. We will die because our people will succumb to a combination of their low birth rates as well as 3rd world colonization and their high birthrates - and not military conquest or anything like it.
Displacement through colonization is the direct product of warfare. In order for there to be mass displacement that will destroy a civilization the civilization in question has to have been unable to resist that colonization, which results from military defeat.
Displacement through colonization is NOT the direct product of warfare in the case of the West. Rotterdam didn't become a near majority Muslim city because it was conquered. States like Texas, California and New Mexico weren't conquered by Mexicans - they were colonized. Southern France wasn't conquered - it was colonized. All of which had absolutely nothing to do with military defeat.
True, but a) there is a difference between immigration and colonization, and b) a Muslim take over of Holland, and an overthrowing of that nation will not take place unless they are able to overthrow the institutions of that kingdom, which will only be cemented by force. The Southern US has not been colonized, it has been subject to mass immigration. The Mexicans there have not supplanted American control of those states.
China could conquer the whole of Europe tomorrow - but unless a concerted effort were made to kill off or terribly displace Europeans, European civilization would not be necessarily doomed. An ideal situation? No. But as long as there are Europeans willing to pro-create and make other Europeans, its civilization will survive. As long as European literature and art is made, European languages are sustained - their legacy will live on.
Actually it could not; China does not have the military power to even leave its own borders. Europe under Chinese domination would no longer be Europe; Chinese would be the language of administration and one would have to accept Chinese ways to have a successful career. Without European armies European civilization will not live on, any more than that of the Greeks did. It influenced future civilizations, but it was gone to history itself.
What I said was hypothetical. I already mentioned before no world power can conquer the West at this moment. I'm saying "China could conquer Europe tomorrow" - and it wouldn't necessarily spell its doom. You're completely missing my point and analysing everything in military terms - military power can be an important part of a civilization, but in terms of what it counts for historically - it's a tiny part of it. How many Spartan philosophers and authors can you readily name vs Athenian ones?
Who won the Pelopponesian War, Sparta or Athens? Athens superabundance of artists, rhetoricians and literary figures did not preserve their poleis or Empire against Sparta's military might. Athenian culture may have been preserved, but their actual civilization failed, and that decline from preeminence to Macedonian conquest was due to military defeat. Military terms aren't the only ones but they must take pride of place.
Neither Sparta nor Athens retained their polities in the end. But while Sparta might be remembered in history and military and strategic studies faculties, Athens is also remembred in political science, philosophy and literature departments as well. What good is a military if all you have to defend is a militaristic society?
Sparta fell because it was militarily defeated by the Thebans, Macedonians and was unable to continue to maintain its armies. Sparta's military might upheld an empire; it was not the only aspect to Spartan civilization. Sparta's military success has filtered down to influence our literature and arts (the movie 300 being the latest example), as well as in some aspects our ideologies and political sciences (both the British Empire and Nazi Germany took inspiration from Sparta).
Civilizations ultimately collapse because the people who created and sustained them disappear, killed off or are displaced. The peoples of the West are being seriously displaced by Third-Worlders - we don't need to be conquered, although a military conquest wouldn't necessarily spell our doom in the first place.
Attempting to draw specious conclusions simply display your inability to actually analyze history. Western Europe has never been a monolithic entity, but its civilization is demonstrably very different from the rest of the world. By Western Europe I am discussing modern Europe, as you are well aware. History's advancement is inevitable, it is advanced chiefly through warfare. Countries that are successful in war will survive, those that are not will find themselves conquered or subjugated.
See, you seem to have a very good memory for historical facts, but you always keep coming back with this "advancement of history" / white man's burden rhetoric. Claiming that genocide* and armed robbery** on a massive scale is justified by such a nebulous concept strikes me as extremely weak. People praise the apartheid government for its 'efficiency', but they ignore its efficiency in running institutions like Vlakplaas.
I think that history will show you that a nation or civilization either strengthens or declines, they do not tend to maintain a status quo. I am a Western European and support western civilization first and foremost. I did not say that western civilization was perfect, nor did I particularly endorse the brutality of the Belgians, etc. Nevertheless wars between different civilizations are always brutal, so there is no point in claiming that European conquests were an aberration.
Modern Europe in historical terms is post-medieval, so roughly late 16th Century to today. Advancement of history is simply how history develops/turns out. There was a commonplace if ridiculous belief after the Cold War that history had ceased / that we had entered a 'post-historical' time. This is nonsense.
Why would you join the very army of a country that sold your country down the fokken river to a marxist socialist goverment ANC. Do you know how much those british hate white South Africans you will not even get a good job other than security or warehouse work and I should know.
@SirSlug haha! idiots like you end up going to wars that are not real wars! a real war is what happened in the late eighties on the border of Angola/Namibia - where soldiers were brave to fight for their country .. NATO wars are about money and control
have fun dodging IED's ''Mate'' UK has no balls to tell amerikkka to go fuck itself
Once the most powerful military force south of the Sahara. Now an AIDS and corruption riddled joke that last week saw its "trade union" orchestrate a mutinous riot trying to storm the head of state's offices.
its actually a kak employer of choice, thats if your white, only, don't forget about black empowerment thats a big choice, not whose the best man for the job.
It's weird. I left SA because of its many problems. I'm now living in the UK.
Back home, I used to actually hate driving in town and being surrounded by taxi's, my house was once invaded/burgled while my family was asleep! And I've been mugged more than once, but I would gladly join the defence force in a heart beat to defend my soil. As much as I try justify leaving SA, I have an equal amount of patriotism, and I always find myself bragging or referring to SA to anyone who listens...go Sharks!
@k0rva1 'and I always find myself bragging or referring to SA to anyone who listens' - believe me we notice this about south africans. 'They talk about themselves a lot' is the common phrase.'.
Also, of course, google 'I've never met a nice south african'. Or look on Youtube.
im a white south african male living in the UK but want to come home and serve in the SADF... is this a bad idea and why (i speak afrikaans, english and zulu)? how much does it pay and pro's and con's etc.? please only reply if you have credible knowlege.
dont join british defence, (they are following the americans around on their little world invasion tour) - SANDF- excellent new technology, but i've heard of many administration / medical problems going down there and the standard is quite bad -
Im not an expert, but Im an America who loves SA. I say go back and help lift up your country. we5026 you are a breath of fresh air, too many Afrikaner expats hate on the new SA from the sidelines. Heck you even have some telling you to fight for Her Majesty. Come to SA im sure your needed!
Before 1994 Afrikaners were given undo privildge, Africa for the African (black and white) not the fake latent Dutch bastards that are abandoning the country in droves.
That's true. However South Africa was the country/ nation state of the Afrikaners. South Africa's only real claim to nationhood is the Boers. They are also the people who made the military as effective as it was. Under Black rule the country has become a ruin. So it is little surprise that disgusted Afrikaners are going elsewhere.
Oud SADF troepe en offisiere kan weer aansoek doen vir diens,dinge is besig om vir goed te verander,ons stuur juis nou `n groep soedan toe,mense nodig vir diens in Somalie,ietwat gevaarlik,Amerikaners betaal goed,$1000 per dag
I'm not some big supporter of Aparteid, but the new army is made of fail and (literally) aids. They should restore it's awesomeness and then kick the shit out of sudan!! lulz
This video is so kak. The ADR dialogue is really bad. The shots are impressive, some good stuff there, but man... who ever did the sound needs to take a course in sound design. It actually hurts the recruitment video. Makes it really cheesy... Try watching it without sound. Its a 10000 times better.
They still do produce a lot of very capable soldiers, but they're quickly lost to PMCs, because escorting convoys in Iraq pays a lot better than the Army, and gives them the freedom to think for themselves, instead of working under a waffling and vacillating chain of command that's never quite sure what the government wants them to do, nor if they're going to be made the scapegoat for deliberately vague policy.
The South African army is up to shit. I personly think they wont be able to stop the boeremag because the boeremag had training by the SADF wich was world wide known as the best army.
accidents happens like jou oom terblanche and his friends went to the northwest on bakkeis and 20 of his AWB thinking they can take over a country they had AZZZ wipped
Well they were dealing with heavily armed people, a mutiny and a mob of ANC supporters. Still they are said to have killed about 600 hundred looters, while they lost about 5 people. 10 years ago the transformed SANDF went into Lesotho and lost many people due to stupidity against some angry people their. Seen the SANDF, they are useless.
Ja I rembember that operation, there were a ridiculous amount of SADF casualties, when the guys they were engaging were farmers with pitchforkes and homemade weapons, that was an embarresment
what were the Navymen wearing?
matthew8897field 9 months ago
Monkeys in SADF?
unespanol93 11 months ago
South african born, Left to live in london at 11 now in the royal marines at 19. Proud that my home nation has a good army and should be fighting with us in afghanistan.
yeahbwoyyy 1 year ago
@yeahbwoyyy Bullshit! the afghan and iraq conflicts have political intentions such as money and control, they are not real conflicts - freedom is an illusion created by bush and blair, its all about the money kid
the 7/7 photos clearly show the bomb came from under the train and not inside.I dont deny extremism but it's not as extensive as the politicians say it is
PS: I've lived in the middle east
GraffitiBombing247 1 year ago
die kaffirs het die grippens en die bote met my geld gekoop, dis n klomp kak, vir wie is hulle bang? Zim??
wynandcalitz 1 year ago
@wynandcalitz die hulle nasie is n klomp kak
spectre2776 11 months ago
@spectre2776 jou ma is n a klomp kak
mautwana 1 month ago
fucking mental!
dodoz122 1 year ago
I am a South African and I shall defend this peace of shit land with all the blood in my body that is why I am joining the army on 01/01/2013
I will defend this land witch I was born on although my parents don't agree I love everything about the army.
I will hopefully die for South Africa our land
Hartsock2008 1 year ago
@Hartsock2008 Don't kid yourself, the SADF was a well polished machine oiled daily and there was respect. It became a turd, then it was polished and became a polished turd to appear better. You join the SANDF you join a UNION go on strike when your pay is kak and disregard for rank. Speak to people (white if you white) in the army get their opinion. Otherwise go French legion and be respected, they can fight for SA too when the time comes.
Venom0ZA 1 year ago
@Hartsock2008 Hey there chief. You're joining your army for the right reasons. I respect that. Don't be in such a rush to die though, that'll happen soon enough. Good luck to you.
coltonbrisk 1 year ago
recruit them all. teach them discipline and skills needed for the workplace and violance will decrease. we need schooling, not people bashing what is and what was. we are south african and proud. when we win at rugby...oh we are all patriotic...but thats not patriotic just to support us when we are ontop. sadf was great, sandf will be better. positive attitutde and take action
micfradus 2 years ago
The SANDF will never be any good as long as it is full of undisciplined poor quality elements from old black militias. Without the white officer corps and nco corps South Africa's military is all but finished. Positive thinking is good but one still has to deal with reality.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
SANDF and South Africa post-1994 are a perfect example of what happens when Europeans are not in charge.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
I put it to you that Europeans are not in charge of large portions of the globe, including Japan, China and South Korea.
ManicParroT 2 years ago
Japan only maintained its independence and became a major power through its total and thorough adoption of almost every aspect of Western Civilization under the Meiji Emperor. China practically lost its independence to Europeans by the start of the 20th Century, and today is only gradually recovering from Communist mismanagement. South Korea only became successful through adoption of Western Democracy. Its European methods that I am talking about, and Asia stayed independent by adopting them.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Comment removed
ManicParroT 2 years ago
I put it to you that China was a large and successful empire for a long time before being defeated by European powers. Aside from the 19th and 20th centuries, they've always been a major contender.
It's also interesting to note that you've been forced to change your position to state that it is European methods that are important, not European people being in charge, as you initally stated.
ManicParroT 2 years ago
European methods derive from European people and European society so there is nothing significant about, unless you took the usual step of screaming 'racist' upon seeing a comment stating that black-run Africa has gone to the dogs. China is an Empire that fell to the Mongols and fell almost entirely to foreign influence in the 20th Century. Chinese society was not up to competing with the society of the Western European empires. Western Europe has never been conquered, and colonized the world.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
The West dominates the world because of its ability to inflict organized violence against other cultures.
You seem to be proud of this. Please tell me more.
ManicParroT 2 years ago
History is advanced through warfare more than through any other single factor. The West has proved dominant in warfare. That is something to be proud of. The West does not have a monopoly on armies, they have just produced the best ones. Violence is not a European invention. However they have also proved by far best able to efficiently administer territories under their control.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
See now, it's been interesting to watch your thought processes, as far as I can follow them. You seem to be subscribing to some curious propositions.
1: History needs to be "advanced". In other words, we need wars to have something to fill the history books. Curious.
2: Europe is an monolithic entity. Everything from Plato to Nato, via the British Empire and Auschwitz is all the same, and used the same 'methods'. Demonstrably false.
ManicParroT 2 years ago
Ultimately though, your biggest problem is not your lack of nuance. It's the incredibly specious argument that warfare = superiority.
No one takes the fall of Rome as proof of the value of the Huns over Roman civilization. It's just (correctly) seen as part of the cycle of history.
North Africa was dominated by the Egyptian Empire for thousands of years. It fell and was replaced.
You're mistaking being on top now for Manifest Destiny.
ManicParroT 2 years ago
The Huns did not conquer the Roman Empire; the Hunnic Confederation collapsed before the Roman Empire in the West fell. The Eastern portion of the Roman Empire survived the collapse, due to military factors and greater wealth in the 5th Century A.D. that enabled it to continue to maintain its military strength. I think that history will show you that defeat in warfare is the fastest way for any civilization or nation to collapse. Egypt fell to Persian and Macedonian supremacy.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Defeat in warfare isn't always a fast track to a civilization's collapse, but rather is a temporary setback. Take Germany for instance. Probably around 70% of the country was bombed beyond all recognition. But by the late 60s was Europe's leading economic power again.
Western civilization is nearing collapse not because we are in danger of being militarily defeated by anyone, but rather because of our demographics.
Flemtar 2 years ago
Germany survived and recovered by subordination to the victors. Germany was one of the world's greatest powers until 1945. Germany is in real power terms a non-entity outside the EU today. I agree with your second point, but ultimately military defeat is what would seal a Western collapse, not simply disappearing in peace.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
A civilization doesn't need to survive in terms of 'real-power' alone. A number of countries thrive because their niche is economics and not necessarily war fighting. While I agree it plays a part, I once again disagree that military conquest spells the end of a civilization, although it can mean drastic changes. There's no world power remotely capable of conquering the West - but the power of the womb (of third-world immigrants) will, if left unchecked, conquer the West. That will be our doom.
Flemtar 2 years ago
Countries that are economically strong survive through their alliances and the military superiority of their allies. Economic powers can not ignore their defenses. As to your other comment it doesn't make sense; if the west were militarily conquered it would spell our doom; western civilization would cease to exist.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
As I've said before. There are many, many examples of peoples, countries being militarily conquered without it spelling the end of their unique civilizations. Ukraine has been occupied for most of the existence of Ukrainian people. Finland too. But the people survived - they were insufficiently killed or displaced. Think of the centuries of foreign occupation endured by Serbia. Serbian civilization never came to an end because there were always Serbs willing to carry on its legacy
Flemtar 2 years ago
The Ukraine was conquered by another very similar Slavic civilization; Russia. Finland has never been a civilization; it is too sparsely populated, and has never really been colonized. Serbia was never totally conquered because Turks did not extensively colonize in the Balkans. Nevertheless the large numbers of Muslims in the Balkans permanently transformed the map of the Balkans. However these are individual countries; not civilizations in and of themselves.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Finland was never colonized? Perhaps you should look more closely at the history of Finland and ask yourself where Finland-Swedes come from? Being sparsely populated isn't a measure of civilization - I realise the definition of civilization is something that's debated - but the Finns and Ukrainians built cities, created art, literature, drama, write (although not always). Each of them were occupied by others for almost as long as they existed. They still thrive.
Flemtar 2 years ago
"Serbia was never totally conquered because Turks did not extensively colonize the Balkans" -
Correct, lending weight to my argument that civilizations, peoples, cultures do not disappear with military conquest alone - they can even be occupied for centuries. It takes a concerted effort to kill and displace the original inhabitants for it to truly disappear. Serbia is no longer an empire, but as a Balkan civilization it lives on, except in Kosovo - where Serbs were displaced and killed.
Flemtar 2 years ago
The manner of the Turkish conquest and hegemony does not change the fact that the Serbs were defeated in war, and thus lost their ability to defend and maintain their civilization. Serbia could have been fully colonized had that been Ottoman policy, which it was not.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
The Serbs lost their Empire but they certainly didn't lose their civilization - civilizations live on through its people - where Serb people are cleansed (most of Kosovo, for example), their civilization ceases to exist. Thankfully, Serbs were not displaced by Turks, Germans, Albanians or anyone else in most of the rest of their territory.
Flemtar 2 years ago
A legacy that, regardless of whether or not it was an independent state with its own strong-arm institutions was able to be passed on.
Think of a relevant Southern African example, since this is a SANDF video. Think of Rhodesia. Rhodesian civilization didn't fall because it was conquered - it fell because the people who created and sustained European-style civilization in that part of Southern Africa (whites) were displaced and killed.
Flemtar 2 years ago
Exactly. It was conquered. The whites were winning the war, but when their leadership surrendered that came to nought; it counts as a military defeat. We all saw what happened to European civilization in Zimbabwe. You have just admitted that they fell because they failed to be victorious on the battlefield. Those are the consequences.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Not at all. Zimbabwe went on for a number of years to be a very successful country compared to other civilizations in Africa. Military conquest didn't displace white people, although it certainly displaced some - Robert Mugabe's racist land reforms displaced white people. ANC Terrorism didn't displace whites in South Africa - but a hostile environment is displacing them now.
Flemtar 2 years ago
I did not say that military defeat immediately led to a cataclysmic upheaval. But the fact is that the uprooting of whites in southern Africa was due to the ultimate success of black insurgencies. The unfortunate fall of Rhodesia spelt the end of the country's prosperity, regardless of the fact that white farmers remained (and some still remain). War may not immediately lead to decisive change, but its effects are the most important on the historical stage.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
and I never said military defeat is a tea party. But if whites remained in large numbers in Zimbabwe today, it would probably be a fairly prosperous state. Militaries help preserve peoples, but ultimately it's the people that count. It's what short-sighted black leaders in Southern Africa forget. Whites built their countries, not them.
Flemtar 2 years ago
The whites were driven out. After they lost military and political control of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe they lost the ability to maintain their communities and nationhood. Militaries are made up of people; they are an integral part of a civilization. Your last sentence is correct.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Ultimately you are a) failing to see the clear difference between immigration and colonization, b) assuming that armies and warfare are not part of the civilizations they defend or of vital importance in their continuity and prosperity and c) failing to recognize that the survival of aspects of a culture is not the same as the survival of a civilization. In Ireland, for example the Irish people and language survived 700 years of British rule, but their civilization changed beyond recognition.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Ultimately you're failing to see that immigration IS colonization and that both displace populations. European immigration to the Americas WAS colonization. Islamic immigration to Europe now IS colonization. Unless you count black gantsters bullets, Europe will be conquered and changed immeasureably without a shot fired. Displacement by colonization and not by military defeat. You clearly over-estimate the importance of militaries when it comes to maintaining civilizations.
Flemtar 2 years ago
You are wrong here. Colonization is when a population moves in, exerting military control and maintaining its independence. Immigration does not qualify. European immigration to America was colonization because they maintained political, economic, military and societal independence from the natives, and supplanted and defeated them. Islamic immigration to Europe does not exert any control, and islamic immigrants can not remove authority from the home governments.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Why don't you tell that to the ethnic Serb population of Kosovo. Or to Mexicans who lost Texas through Anglo-American immigration into the area.
You think Europeans will still control their countries once non-white immigrants and their descendants become the majority? You're even more naive than I thought.
In the context of the current international system, unchecked non-white and Muslim immigration to the West IS COLONIZATION.
Flemtar 2 years ago
Civilization is often used as a broader term to define culture and there is debate as to what exactly constitutes a civilization. One thing is for certain - a civilization doesn't need to be an independent state society or an Empire to be have that title. And it certainly doesn't need a military. A civilization needs a group of people (usually of common origin) who produce a complex culture, language, practice a certain amount of economic stratification, agriculture and urbanization.
Flemtar 2 years ago
When a civilization or nation loses its ability to militarily defend itself its survival or extinction is in the hands of foreign military powers. Over time loss of independence will inevitably erode and ultimately supplant any civilization. That is why military superiority is important; nations or civilizations that are successful in warfare thrive, and those that fail do not.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Western Europe was militarily successful in conquering the Third-World. The supposed superiority opened the door for reverse colonization.
When Britain, France and the Netherlands become majority non-white somewhere around 2050, a number of peoples around the world (even in Europe) will continue to have their own countries run by their own peoples because they either did not want to, or simply could not, flaunt their militaries to one another. That's the paradox of what you're saying.
Flemtar 2 years ago
I have no idea what you are talking about. Your paragraph made no sense. Your judgement is flawed because you don't know the difference between colonization as opposed to mere immigration. They are not the same thing. My essential point is this; civilizations do not thrive and nations do not survive that can not defend their territory against foreign threats. Colonists are not within the control of the indigenous population they supplant; they militarily occupy their holdings.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
I know the difference in dictionary definitions between colonization and immigration. You obviously have trouble understanding what I'm saying, maybe I wasn't clear. I'm saying that current immigration trends, the one-way flow of people from South to North - especially the movement of former colonial peoples to their former "oppressor" nations is tantamount to reverse colonization and THAT is how European nations and the West as a greater "umbrella civilization" will fall.
Flemtar 2 years ago
That is to miss the difference between colonization and immigration. Colonists do not assimilate, remain separate and independent from the indigenous population, and retain foreign allegiances and usually military/political independence from the indigenous administrative structure. None of those things apply to reverse immigration, which is creating a multicultural melting pot within the structure of the European nation.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
As a military member, I understand the importance of a capable military. But as a student of political science and demography, I've personally come to the conclusion that the most important factor in civilization death is not military defeat, but displacement of the people who created and sustained the civilization. I believe military might has far less to do with preserving civilization than you suggest. I'll leave that as my final word. It's nice to have civil debates. Happy New Year.
Flemtar 2 years ago
@Flemtar Very well put and probably true.The question is:
Who undermined your country and why?
To find out, follow the money
coltonbrisk 1 year ago
No, they will become majority non-white due to very short-sighted and lax immigration regimes, and a liberal agenda that favors the notion of multiculturalism as being somehow beneficial. Such countries would not have fallen because they were weak, but because they were badly governed. Also European colonization was less important in the 'reverse colonization' than improvements in transportation on land, sea and air. Immigration is not the same as colonization; colonists do not assimilate.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
@Kampfer1445 "Those states which are the best armed are at one the most free"
Machaivelli
coltonbrisk 1 year ago
Irish civilization was undoubtedly changed - but just because they were conquered in no way exempted them from the fact they were and still are a unique civilization with particularities unique to them. French Canada was forever changed by the 1759 conquest - but it was far from the end. Even under British rule, the French-speaking inhabitants of Quebec continued to populate the countryside, build cities, produce works of history, art and literature, etc. All without a unique state or military.
Flemtar 2 years ago
The Irish are different in some ways from the English, but their culture and civilization that existed prior to their conquest no longer tangible exists. French Canada was not a civilization, but an extension of France.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Franco-Americans (whether French-Canadian or Acadian) are a distinct culture in the Americas, which depending on the definition chosen of civilization, consitutes one - especially taking into consideration other civilizations or their extensions in the Americas. "Latin American", "Germanic or Anglo-American", "Afro-Carribbean". People simply rarely mention "Franco-American" territories because they exist in Anglo-Majority countries. Their distinctiveness remains, but I see again we have trouble
Flemtar 2 years ago
coming up with a commonly held definition of civilization. There are a number of University faculties in Canada dedicated to French-Canadian and Acadian civilization and are called such. Both French-Canadians and Acadians would reject simply being extensions of French civilization.
Flemtar 2 years ago
They are. The very title 'French Canadian' implies that they are part of French civilization. French Canada does not have enough distinguish characteristics to be termed a separate civilization, whatever it may think of itself. It is distinct from British Canada though.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
In the context of the Americas, it is distinct. It is an extension of French civilization but not only so. French Canadians and Acadians have had radically different developments from France and from each other since the conquest and deportation and couldn't possibly be simply grouped as "French", as if they have no defining characteristics of their own.
I simply gave you an example of a culture, nation, people - civilization if you will, that thrived under foreign occupation contrary to your
Flemtar 2 years ago
logic. I don't understand what you're trying to show by saying they somehow aren't distinct enough to count. Doesn't make much sense to me.
Flemtar 2 years ago
Irish culture and Irish civilization are not the same thing. The cultures may survive after military conquest, but the civilizations do not. The Irish civilization that was finally conquered in 1603 is consigned to the pages of history. Much in Irish culture and temperament survived and plays its part in the current Irish State, but every part of that State's structure and administration is based on Britain. A culture can survive conquest, a civilization falls with the conquest.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Military conquest sometimes (but not always) will be the lynchpin between a country or civilization's survival and death. I'm not denying that - I'm just saying the far bigger factor is displacement through colonization. At current trends, the West will die. And will probably die without much of a fight. We will die because our people will succumb to a combination of their low birth rates as well as 3rd world colonization and their high birthrates - and not military conquest or anything like it.
Flemtar 2 years ago
Displacement through colonization is the direct product of warfare. In order for there to be mass displacement that will destroy a civilization the civilization in question has to have been unable to resist that colonization, which results from military defeat.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Displacement through colonization is NOT the direct product of warfare in the case of the West. Rotterdam didn't become a near majority Muslim city because it was conquered. States like Texas, California and New Mexico weren't conquered by Mexicans - they were colonized. Southern France wasn't conquered - it was colonized. All of which had absolutely nothing to do with military defeat.
Flemtar 2 years ago
True, but a) there is a difference between immigration and colonization, and b) a Muslim take over of Holland, and an overthrowing of that nation will not take place unless they are able to overthrow the institutions of that kingdom, which will only be cemented by force. The Southern US has not been colonized, it has been subject to mass immigration. The Mexicans there have not supplanted American control of those states.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
China could conquer the whole of Europe tomorrow - but unless a concerted effort were made to kill off or terribly displace Europeans, European civilization would not be necessarily doomed. An ideal situation? No. But as long as there are Europeans willing to pro-create and make other Europeans, its civilization will survive. As long as European literature and art is made, European languages are sustained - their legacy will live on.
Flemtar 2 years ago
Actually it could not; China does not have the military power to even leave its own borders. Europe under Chinese domination would no longer be Europe; Chinese would be the language of administration and one would have to accept Chinese ways to have a successful career. Without European armies European civilization will not live on, any more than that of the Greeks did. It influenced future civilizations, but it was gone to history itself.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
What I said was hypothetical. I already mentioned before no world power can conquer the West at this moment. I'm saying "China could conquer Europe tomorrow" - and it wouldn't necessarily spell its doom. You're completely missing my point and analysing everything in military terms - military power can be an important part of a civilization, but in terms of what it counts for historically - it's a tiny part of it. How many Spartan philosophers and authors can you readily name vs Athenian ones?
Flemtar 2 years ago
Who won the Pelopponesian War, Sparta or Athens? Athens superabundance of artists, rhetoricians and literary figures did not preserve their poleis or Empire against Sparta's military might. Athenian culture may have been preserved, but their actual civilization failed, and that decline from preeminence to Macedonian conquest was due to military defeat. Military terms aren't the only ones but they must take pride of place.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Neither Sparta nor Athens retained their polities in the end. But while Sparta might be remembered in history and military and strategic studies faculties, Athens is also remembred in political science, philosophy and literature departments as well. What good is a military if all you have to defend is a militaristic society?
Flemtar 2 years ago
Sparta fell because it was militarily defeated by the Thebans, Macedonians and was unable to continue to maintain its armies. Sparta's military might upheld an empire; it was not the only aspect to Spartan civilization. Sparta's military success has filtered down to influence our literature and arts (the movie 300 being the latest example), as well as in some aspects our ideologies and political sciences (both the British Empire and Nazi Germany took inspiration from Sparta).
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Civilizations ultimately collapse because the people who created and sustained them disappear, killed off or are displaced. The peoples of the West are being seriously displaced by Third-Worlders - we don't need to be conquered, although a military conquest wouldn't necessarily spell our doom in the first place.
Flemtar 2 years ago
Attempting to draw specious conclusions simply display your inability to actually analyze history. Western Europe has never been a monolithic entity, but its civilization is demonstrably very different from the rest of the world. By Western Europe I am discussing modern Europe, as you are well aware. History's advancement is inevitable, it is advanced chiefly through warfare. Countries that are successful in war will survive, those that are not will find themselves conquered or subjugated.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
None of these conclusions should be any surprise to those who know their history.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Modern Europe? So, the European Union? Europe post-WW2? WW1? British Empire and after?
An explanation of what you mean by "the advancement of history" - a nebulous phrase - would be good, too.
ManicParroT 2 years ago
See, you seem to have a very good memory for historical facts, but you always keep coming back with this "advancement of history" / white man's burden rhetoric. Claiming that genocide* and armed robbery** on a massive scale is justified by such a nebulous concept strikes me as extremely weak. People praise the apartheid government for its 'efficiency', but they ignore its efficiency in running institutions like Vlakplaas.
*Belgian Congo, North America.
**Cortez et al.
ManicParroT 2 years ago
I think that history will show you that a nation or civilization either strengthens or declines, they do not tend to maintain a status quo. I am a Western European and support western civilization first and foremost. I did not say that western civilization was perfect, nor did I particularly endorse the brutality of the Belgians, etc. Nevertheless wars between different civilizations are always brutal, so there is no point in claiming that European conquests were an aberration.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Modern Europe in historical terms is post-medieval, so roughly late 16th Century to today. Advancement of history is simply how history develops/turns out. There was a commonplace if ridiculous belief after the Cold War that history had ceased / that we had entered a 'post-historical' time. This is nonsense.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
What a load of kak.
It's why I'm joining the British Army and fucking proud to. Fucking SANDF lame shit.
SirSlug 2 years ago 3
Why would you join the very army of a country that sold your country down the fokken river to a marxist socialist goverment ANC. Do you know how much those british hate white South Africans you will not even get a good job other than security or warehouse work and I should know.
Sunclief 2 years ago
@SirSlug haha! idiots like you end up going to wars that are not real wars! a real war is what happened in the late eighties on the border of Angola/Namibia - where soldiers were brave to fight for their country .. NATO wars are about money and control
have fun dodging IED's ''Mate'' UK has no balls to tell amerikkka to go fuck itself
GraffitiBombing247 1 year ago
@SirSlug Kak is Dutch for Shit lol, i guess same in Afrikaans?
naroj10 6 months ago
Once the most powerful military force south of the Sahara. Now an AIDS and corruption riddled joke that last week saw its "trade union" orchestrate a mutinous riot trying to storm the head of state's offices.
lovemorembigi 2 years ago
Are you gonna sit on the sidelines and make useless comments or help your country?
laborgrunt 2 years ago
its actually a kak employer of choice, thats if your white, only, don't forget about black empowerment thats a big choice, not whose the best man for the job.
darthrob1 2 years ago
It's weird. I left SA because of its many problems. I'm now living in the UK.
Back home, I used to actually hate driving in town and being surrounded by taxi's, my house was once invaded/burgled while my family was asleep! And I've been mugged more than once, but I would gladly join the defence force in a heart beat to defend my soil. As much as I try justify leaving SA, I have an equal amount of patriotism, and I always find myself bragging or referring to SA to anyone who listens...go Sharks!
k0rva1 2 years ago 14
your right man, i moved to the uk 6 yrs ago and was was with the sadf from '87 to '91, what can i say but my blood will always run green, go bokke
darthrob1 2 years ago
@k0rva1 hey bra im with u on tht one GO SHARKS
scroog2007 1 year ago
@k0rva1 'and I always find myself bragging or referring to SA to anyone who listens' - believe me we notice this about south africans. 'They talk about themselves a lot' is the common phrase.'.
Also, of course, google 'I've never met a nice south african'. Or look on Youtube.
maureenOWW 9 months ago
@maureenOWW hehe,the english dont even like each other.
azanianlion 8 months ago
im a white south african male living in the UK but want to come home and serve in the SADF... is this a bad idea and why (i speak afrikaans, english and zulu)? how much does it pay and pro's and con's etc.? please only reply if you have credible knowlege.
we5026 3 years ago
you should :]
MrSouthAfrica2006 3 years ago
SADF is long gone. SANDF is not the same anymore. Serve in the British Army instead.
Spetznaz24 2 years ago
serve in the british army, are you fucking nuts... fight for those ppl? lol nice one
we5026 2 years ago
if africa is where your heart is i say go for it
ljs2k7 2 years ago
dont join british defence, (they are following the americans around on their little world invasion tour) - SANDF- excellent new technology, but i've heard of many administration / medical problems going down there and the standard is quite bad -
you chose
GraffitiBombing247 2 years ago
Im not an expert, but Im an America who loves SA. I say go back and help lift up your country. we5026 you are a breath of fresh air, too many Afrikaner expats hate on the new SA from the sidelines. Heck you even have some telling you to fight for Her Majesty. Come to SA im sure your needed!
laborgrunt 2 years ago
Wake up! The country has gone to the dogs since 1994.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Before 1994 Afrikaners were given undo privildge, Africa for the African (black and white) not the fake latent Dutch bastards that are abandoning the country in droves.
laborgrunt 2 years ago
That's true. However South Africa was the country/ nation state of the Afrikaners. South Africa's only real claim to nationhood is the Boers. They are also the people who made the military as effective as it was. Under Black rule the country has become a ruin. So it is little surprise that disgusted Afrikaners are going elsewhere.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
defend you from who? angola mm na i don't think so
revotaquito 3 years ago
South African army is the only army in Sub Sahara which can not be defeated by any other Sub Saharan army!
Angola doesn't even have an armed force at this moment. UN blue's are the defence and policing force there!
rjhonert 3 years ago
Oud SADF troepe en offisiere kan weer aansoek doen vir diens,dinge is besig om vir goed te verander,ons stuur juis nou `n groep soedan toe,mense nodig vir diens in Somalie,ietwat gevaarlik,Amerikaners betaal goed,$1000 per dag
rooigladiator 3 years ago
I'm not some big supporter of Aparteid, but the new army is made of fail and (literally) aids. They should restore it's awesomeness and then kick the shit out of sudan!! lulz
Gramra 4 years ago 11
Would help if we actually had trained staff available to crew the multi billion Rand ships gathering algae in Simonstown harbor :-/
JustifyJustin 4 years ago
waarheid, those things never see any action
kinsley2108 3 years ago
This video is so kak. The ADR dialogue is really bad. The shots are impressive, some good stuff there, but man... who ever did the sound needs to take a course in sound design. It actually hurts the recruitment video. Makes it really cheesy... Try watching it without sound. Its a 10000 times better.
Crash6Nemesis 4 years ago
They record it in many different languages... English, Afrikaans, and all the dialects... so they have to overlap soundtracks in translation.
ajua25 4 years ago 2
They still do produce a lot of very capable soldiers, but they're quickly lost to PMCs, because escorting convoys in Iraq pays a lot better than the Army, and gives them the freedom to think for themselves, instead of working under a waffling and vacillating chain of command that's never quite sure what the government wants them to do, nor if they're going to be made the scapegoat for deliberately vague policy.
Kyle359 4 years ago 2
Same with most Militaries these days.
Why work for a military that pays you little money when you can get two to three times that much for half the amount of bullshit?
It's not just a SADF problem. America, Australia, Britain and all the others have exactly the same issue.
And it's not just the soldiers. The officers get better job oppurtunities as well.
G4tkr4mp 4 years ago 3
The South African army is up to shit. I personly think they wont be able to stop the boeremag because the boeremag had training by the SADF wich was world wide known as the best army.
mirageF1AZ 4 years ago 2
Except the SA army has tanks, alot more/powerful weapons, and the support of an air force.
G4tkr4mp 4 years ago
airforce? tanks? ammo? HA HA HA!!!!!
kerrelskas 3 years ago
awesome *-*
BlackShirt17 4 years ago
Go SA go
cityslicker975 4 years ago 2
... I wonder if they even could stop Lesothos Fire Brigade from invading.
Horagalles 4 years ago
yep they can stop em and they can stop the boere mag lol
cityslicker975 4 years ago
One wonders, if this boere mag really exists. The newest is that they've blown themselves up at Lohatla - 9 were killed.
Horagalles 4 years ago
accidents happens like jou oom terblanche and his friends went to the northwest on bakkeis and 20 of his AWB thinking they can take over a country they had AZZZ wipped
cityslicker975 4 years ago
Well they were dealing with heavily armed people, a mutiny and a mob of ANC supporters. Still they are said to have killed about 600 hundred looters, while they lost about 5 people. 10 years ago the transformed SANDF went into Lesotho and lost many people due to stupidity against some angry people their. Seen the SANDF, they are useless.
Horagalles 4 years ago
Ja I rembember that operation, there were a ridiculous amount of SADF casualties, when the guys they were engaging were farmers with pitchforkes and homemade weapons, that was an embarresment
goonerfromjhb 4 years ago
That is sickening.
Schandy 4 years ago