Cheer up...there's no need to be Nazi

[tiglet]

I might indeed, but my cousin was over there as he is an engineer in the TA's and was involved in some way with the recovery of bodies in mass graves - it sort of makes an impression.

 

There are always atrocities and horrors in every war - the victor gets to paint hem out of their own picture and paint them into everyone elses.

[dannyboy660]

"they" And who would "they" be, Dannyboy?

 

Are we talking the Muslim "they"? The Jewish "they"? Are we talking the Christian "they"? Or are we talking about any of the other religious or non-religious "they"?

 

There's always a them. You are so supportive of the military and yet you seem to fail to grasp that it is precisely because of British military expansionism during the time of the Empire which has led to all of these problems.

 

Denying women an education? Well, this country is hardly any better in the educational stakes - myself and others on this forum have been or are currently fighting to get an education (or appropriate education) for our children because of the lack of ready help for those with disabilities. Prejudice against the mentally or physically impaired? Hmm, wasn't Hitler for that with his eugenics programmes?

 

As for women in education, this has only really improved in te last 20 years or so - and if you bring childcare into the equation, only really in the last 5 years or so.

 

I would also like to point out that Iran had a very liberal education system and view of women until a regime was elected in because of the fears the populus had about the agressive West.

 

I disagree with Bluey & HC about the last WW being the last one to have any real ethical value (paraphrasing here) because of the genocide which occurred in Bosnia and Kosovo - I feel very proud that we got involved in that.

 

This thread has gone from being supportive of our armed forces into being supportive of whatever military action our government dictates - please don't confuse the two.

 

I think this is potentially a very inflammatory thread, and quite disgusting too, when "they" are mentioned.

 

Remember Dannyboy - sometimes "they" are "us".

 

 

I think you're right

 

I can't reply...or even repudiate any of your claims, because I am still living in a post war Empiric demise.

 

I feel totally delinquent, and probably even inadequate that we let you down so badly.

 

 

I've only been here a short time, I've seen arguments good and bad on the financial side, but never before have I (and I suspect others) been so shat on in such a big way.

 

I will refrain from my efforts to get a level playing field, and I am totally subservient to your way of "doing things". ;-)

 

Never before in all my years of public service have I felt so inferior.....but at last my eyes have been opened to the way it really is.

 

I wish you all the best in changing things.

 

Go for it Big Yin

 

 

YouTube - The Chieftains

[tiglet]

I don't want anyone to be "subservient" to me Dannyboy and I have been a member less time than you.

 

I'm not arguing because I want to assert my authority, but rather than I am genuinely passionate about individual freedoms and liberties and am strongly against those (and I don't mean you) who crusade in the name of those liberties when really they couldn't give a monkeys. It degrades both those who support such action and those who oppose it.

 

I am not trying to make anyone feel inferior - in fact, DB, people can only make you feel inferior if you let them, so don't.

 

However, I do strongly disagree with your views and will not apologise for that.

 

These types of threads do inflame heated debate and passions, but that is no reason to leave the site (if I am reading what you have said correctly). I have made it clear that I support the armed forces, but not necessarily the actions they take or are directed to take as a unit or individuals. As someone who has studies both theology and philosophy and has an intense interest in history, I feel I am validated in defending those who do not have a voice on this thread. Your generalisations about people in the middle east and the use of the word "them" deeply upset me - as, i might add, do the violations of the rights of all peoples, so we are in agreement tehre. i simply do not feel taht military action is usually the best recourse - history bears enough scars of taht, even within this country.

 

We are all entitled to our opinions, dear dannyboy, but we have to accept that when we post them, the same as when we speak them, otehrs have the right to challenge and offer their opinion.

 

 

I hope you understand I was attacking your viewpoint and not you. I would hate you to stop posting because you felt you were being undervalued or "shat" upon.

 

Tiglet x

[dannyboy660]

I don't want anyone to be "subservient" to me Dannyboy and I have been a member less time than you.

 

I'm not arguing because I want to assert my authority, but rather than I am genuinely passionate about individual freedoms and liberties and am strongly against those (and I don't mean you) who crusade in the name of those liberties when really they couldn't give a monkeys. It degrades both those who support such action and those who oppose it.

 

I am not trying to make anyone feel inferior - in fact, DB, people can only make you feel inferior if you let them, so don't.

 

However, I do strongly disagree with your views and will not apologise for that.

 

These types of threads do inflame heated debate and passions, but that is no reason to leave the site (if I am reading what you have said correctly). I have made it clear that I support the armed forces, but not necessarily the actions they take or are directed to take as a unit or individuals. As someone who has studies both theology and philosophy and has an intense interest in history, I feel I am validated in defending those who do not have a voice on this thread. Your generalisations about people in the middle east and the use of the word "them" deeply upset me - as, i might add, do the violations of the rights of all peoples, so we are in agreement tehre. i simply do not feel taht military action is usually the best recourse - history bears enough scars of taht, even within this country.

 

We are all entitled to our opinions, dear dannyboy, but we have to accept that when we post them, the same as when we speak them, otehrs have the right to challenge and offer their opinion.

 

 

I hope you understand I was attacking your viewpoint and not you. I would hate you to stop posting because you felt you were being undervalued or "shat" upon.

 

Tiglet x

 

 

My Viewpoint????

 

 

 

It'll take more than that !!!!!

 

 

I love you too Tiglet............

 

 

If only you knew, how much ........

[dannyboy660]

This could be the one to do it..........

 

 

 

 

Stand back.........

[Hippy-chick]

Hi Danny

 

As tiglet said, I hope that you appreciate that I am not attacking you in person, but did have concerns about the way that you presented your arguments.

 

I don't know who you think the "we" is that let "us" down so badly. As tiglet said, I do not subscribe to that "us" and "them" mentality. I think that we are all us. And I do think that we make terrible mistakes.

 

However, I do not think that marching in with all guns blazing is the best way to sort out our disagreements. And I do not think that one society has the monopoly on the best way to sort out society and to ensure that its citizens can realise their rights. This, I think, is why universal declarations of rights tend to be so general. And I agree with tiglet, none of us are getting it right yet.

 

I have great sympathy for all of our armed forces, both now and in the past. They do a terrible job, one that we should not ask of anyone. And I thank all active soldiers, past and present, for doing that job.

 

But please do not ask me to support war in general, or wars where one society goes in because of their principles.

 

And - do not throw ad hominem attacks at me and accuse me of not caring about rights just because I do not agree with your methods.

 

I believe there are other ways of sorting out the problems of this world.

 

And, believe me, I do put my money where my mouth is and try my best to work towards a more just world.

[dannyboy660]

Hi Danny

 

As tiglet said, I hope that you appreciate that I am not attacking you in person, but did have concerns about the way that you presented your arguments.

 

I don't know who you think the "we" is that let "us" down so badly. As tiglet said, I do not subscribe to that "us" and "them" mentality. I think that we are all us. And I do think that we make terrible mistakes.

 

However, I do not think that marching in with all guns blazing is the best way to sort out our disagreements. And I do not think that one society has the monopoly on the best way to sort out society and to ensure that its citizens can realise their rights. This, I think, is why universal declarations of rights tend to be so general. And I agree with tiglet, none of us are getting it right yet.

 

I have great sympathy for all of our armed forces, both now and in the past. They do a terrible job, one that we should not ask of anyone. And I thank all active soldiers, past and present, for doing that job.

 

But please do not ask me to support war in general, or wars where one society goes in because of their principles.

 

And - do not throw ad hominem attacks at me and accuse me of not caring about rights just because I do not agree with your methods.

 

I believe there are other ways of sorting out the problems of this world.

 

And, believe me, I do put my money where my mouth is and try my best to work towards a more just world.

 

 

As Tiglet said...

 

As Hippy chick said.......

 

 

 

 

 

I know when I've served my purpose.....

 

...and it's not here anymore.......

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks and........goodbye......

 

 

See you after the judgment????

[blueskies]

Now that is a surreal post.

 

I take it you are offering no further argument???

 

(do you want me to swap sides and help you??)

[Hippy-chick]

Shall we all swap sides? As I can do both.

[tiglet]

Me too - argument for a just war anyone?

[dave]

Yeah, with oil running out, our governments have a duty to invade oil producing countries to ensure that we still have a pipeline for as long as possible.

 

If they have to lie about the reasons for doing so in order that the UN don't get on their case too much, then so be it.

 

It's all for our own good, don't you know?

[tiglet]

And ultimately for the good of the planet.

[dave]

...by using up the oil quicker?

[Hippy-chick]

And, in the grand scheme of things, a few hundred, a few thousand, lives lost is worth it for the greater good.

[tiglet]

for the greater good of those who hold investements in oil, such as the Bush family, do you mean?

[dave]

Yeah, I think we should use the oil up quicker. It's good for the planet if you think about it.

 

We use it up quicker, then the government will need to fund research into a better and more efficient fuel. Thus, saving the planet from prolonged use of oil.

[Hippy-chick]

Me too - argument for a just war anyone?

 

I always love this phrase.

 

After all, it's just war.

[Hippy-chick]

"War does not determine who is right, only who is left"

 

Bertrand Russell. War and Peace

[MilkTrayMan]

...We only choose to engage in war where we have a financial interest to do so. If this was not the case then why have we not invaded Zimbabwe? Religious intolerance, political murders, inhumane treatment of women. You name it Mugabe has done it.

I agree to a certain extent re: Zimbabwe.

However, let us NOT forget that Rhodesia initially came under the influence of British Empire cos of 'financial interest' in the 1st place...

 

There is NO doubt though, that it is the PC Brigade that prevents Britain from intervening.

Imagine the cries of Imperialists, Colonialists, White Supremacist Racists!

So the 'Powers that Be' stand back + watch innocent peoples + economies throughout the WHOLE of Africa suffer as a result of the 'Do-gooders' + Pacifists.

 

Since independance, many countries have endured decades of conflict + corruption.

Was THAT the future that the ordinary peeps looked forward to, when the sun so poignantly set on the British Empire throughout the globe??

 

The rights or wrongs of Britain having an Empire is NOT the point.

The point is, that for the lickle folk of these former Colonies, the British provided the stability + law + order that has so sadly been lacking before + since our involvement.

 

It has been the British tradition of Justice + 'Fair Play' that has both been our rallying standard + also our nemisis against unseen foe.

 

As I taxpayer, I strongly object to having to fork out for Britain to have a Standing Army, if it is just to be kept for collecting mothballs.

War is a terrible thing, that there is NO doubt.

...But I believe that it is far far preferable, than the indiscriminate innocent slaughter that ensues, if anarchy or tyranny is allowed to prevail...8)

 

Instead of like dannyboy660 wanting the W.I. to right the wrongs of world...

 

...I would much prefer 'Land of Hope & Glory', as the anthem that we take to the rest of the world!

 

 

...

[tiglet]

Hmm - interesting.

 

So, like Sadam Hussein did with Iraq you mean? Keeping factions from fighting, as they are doing now without the noose, sorry, i mean ahnd of firm government?

 

Oh, hang on, that's right, we've dropped the iraqi people in the ****, given them a puppet governmnet, naffed off with their oil and now are leaving them too it? (Apart from looking after the oil refineries, that is).

 

Slightly contradictory to your argument, wouldn't you say? After all, there were no real civil disturbances under the third reich either - do the ends justify the means?

[MilkTrayMan]

...Slightly contradictory to your argument, wouldn't you say? After all, there were no real civil disturbances under the third reich either - do the ends justify the means?

No contradictions to my argument whatsoever...

Despite what some peeps might think, Britain is STILL a very open + democratic country compared to most.

 

Germany under Hitler + Iraq under Hussain did NOT enjoy such luxuries for their entire populations.

...Likewise Russia under it's Tzars or under Stalin...

[MilkTrayMan]

Btw...tiggie-poos...

 

Iraq was under the sphere of British influence after the collapse of the defunct Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI.

Indeed, it was the British, with the like of Lawrence of Arabia, who had encouraged its people to throw off the yoke of Turkish oppression + seek to become a self determining country.

 

Unfortunately, the Area just requires a tad more 'tweaking' to achieve those aims...

[tiglet]

Hmm, you mean like encouraging Sadam Hussein to stage a coup with complicit support from the British and Americans when he came into power? i would suggest you read up on the history of Iraq between 1919 and 1990 to gain a fuller understanding.

 

 

"War is a terrible thing, that there is NO doubt.

...But I believe that it is far far preferable, than the indiscriminate innocent slaughter that ensues, if anarchy or tyranny is allowed to prevail..."

Again, hmm, wasn't this Hitler's argument for installing the third reich, doing away with free elections and invading eastern europe?

 

Perhaps you are right that the country needs more "tweaking" - if so, can you please explain to me how the last two wars there have achieved that?

[revolting peasant]

On 25th May 1982 I went for a swim - one I will never forget!

 

Atlantic Conveyor was shipping a whole squadron of Chinook helicopters, 6 Sea Harriers and 6 Harrier GR3s

 

We were hit by 2 Exocet missiles fired from probably 100 miles away. The Argentine pilot probably never even saw his target in real life.

 

Fortnuately (if that's the right word), only 12 people died that night. There was one Chinook airborne at the time. Bravo November survived the whole conflict and Sqn Ldr Dick Langworthy was the pilot throughout. Dick sadly died in The Falklands of a heart attack on his second tour of duty after the end of the conflict.

 

You might be wondering what is my point - it is that I am sick of seeing people who joined the armed forces wanting huge amounts of money for injuries thay have received in the course of their duties. YOU JOINED THE ARMED FORCES VOLUNTARILY, SO DID I AND I HAVEN'T CLAIMED A PENNY FROM THE MOD BECAUSE I KNEW WHEN I JOINED THAT I MIGHT JUST HAVE TO GO INTO A WAR

[blueskies]

You might be wondering what is my point - it is that I am sick of seeing people who joined the armed forces wanting huge amounts of money for injuries thay have received in the course of their duties. YOU JOINED THE ARMED FORCES VOLUNTARILY, SO DID I AND I HAVEN'T CLAIMED A PENNY FROM THE MOD BECAUSE I KNEW WHEN I JOINED THAT I MIGHT JUST HAVE TO GO INTO A WAR

 

Even as a pacifist I have a trouble with individuals who joined the armed forces who, the minute a war looks likely, hold their hands up and say "I don't like it". You have an agreement when you sign up that the force you joined can send you anywhere to 'defend' your nation.

 

I also believe that, if a person has served and has suffered injuries then the MOD should pay for the healthcare and, if the injured person is unable to work afterwards, a living wage for the rest of their life.