The Fish 9103 Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I often need to accomplishment something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonotl 2475 Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Don't spare the whip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 oh well. That was Ok while it lasted. I voted "no" by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3243 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 I assume all those saying the lives of British soldiers is a price worth paying for pseudo democracy in a far off land will be joining up next time they are used for said purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 I assume all those saying the lives of British soldiers is a price worth paying for pseudo democracy in a far off land will be joining up next time they are used for said purpose. Word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) I assume all those saying the lives of British soldiers is a price worth paying for pseudo democracy in a far off land will be joining up next time they are used for said purpose. all well and good, if 1. They weren't all volunteers, and 2. The reason those who oppose this were opposing it for the reason you state rather than a naive ideology. Which is what it is, and that is the truth. The same ideology which leads them to believe we can actually educate these cavemen and/or lecture them on what naughty boys they are, and that it is OK for them to heckle our troops when they come home [those that do come home] because they have "rights as British citizens". Personally, I don't see why anybody can have any objection to scumbags like Gaddafi, Saddam, Adams, McGuinness and numerous others to be tracked down, tortured and shot, as soon as possible to save thousands or more innocent civilians rather than take any notice of the likes of the UN and other namby pamby softies that only allow them to carry on. Do you think thousands on innocent people killed in Ulster is a price worth paying to get the British Army out ? Edited June 2, 2012 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3243 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Ulster is still in Britain and there are still soldiers there. Volunteers is a funny word "did you volunteer to join the British army" "yes" "did you volunteer to die in a war based on a lie which lined a lot of rich peoples pockets" "no". So my point still stands if you think it's good for British soldiers to die for a foreign country then join the fuck up or shut the fuck up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted June 2, 2012 Author Share Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) He wouldn't be allowed to join the army, if he wanted to or not, so your 'point' is fucking idiotic to begin with--this is beside the point: you do not speak for the soldiers, many of whom support the conflict. Whistling around your pea brain is the idea that the army is populated by young men in Iraq who hold the same opinion of the war as the people marching on anti-war demonstrations. This is a work of fiction, and a poor one. Edited June 2, 2012 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonasjuice 0 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 You join the army, you might fight in wars that aren't as simple as fighting a big evil baddie. Fact of life. That doesn't mean I think it's 'good' but if anyone's joined up in the last 20 years thinking otherwise then they are naive to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3243 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 I was in the army so was a mate of mine sgt maj Colin Walls of crook. He died in Iraq. I assume if you say most soldiers support the war then you have performed some form of survey. None of my mates supported the invasion of Iraq but it was their duty to go on multiple tours to support their mates and honour their regiments. LM might be to old but you're not. I assume you are too much of a coward to fight the good fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted June 2, 2012 Author Share Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) I was in the army so was a mate of mine sgt maj Colin Walls of crook. He died in Iraq. I assume if you say most soldiers support the war then you have performed some form of survey. None of my mates supported the invasion of Iraq but it was their duty to go on multiple tours to support their mates and honour their regiments. LM might be to old but you're not. I assume you are too much of a coward to fight the good fight. You make a lot of assumptions. I have performed a survey yes. Did sgt maj Collins Walls of Crook support the war? And how many of your mates served tours in Iraq whilst believing the conflict was wrong? Once we have your figures we can compare it with my survey. Also, regarding the last sentence, and your general tone. Can you find a statement in this thread where I have stated that the Iraq war was definitely just, the 'good fight' so to speak? Edited June 2, 2012 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3243 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Most of my mates thought it was bullshit. I won't speak for Col. Put your survey up then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SloopJohn 0 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 I often need to accomplishment something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted June 2, 2012 Author Share Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) How many of your mates exactly? For what it's worth, in 2003--ie, when it mattered--I was in vehement opposition to the invasion, so if it were up to me, no British troops would have gone in the first place. I have since read a bit about the history of Saddam Hussein and the region in general, and heard arguments for the war that weren't based on a belief in a WMD stockpile. I am sympathetic with some of those arguments and also have heard a lot of bullshit from the anti-war crowd. That's not to say I think the war is definitely worth it, just that I think in order to decide whether something is right or wrong, you need to hear both sides of the argument stated at their strongest and then compare the pros/cons of each. I am still going through that process with regards to this. Edited June 2, 2012 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3243 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 The war was passes through the houses of parliament purely because of the WMD dossier this has been proved to be a myth. Saddam was a nasty cunt and should have been got rid of but that was up to the Iraqi's to do not Blair and Bush deciding to waste British and American lives on. Especially when they pick and choose which murderous cunts to do over and which ones to pal up to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted June 2, 2012 Author Share Posted June 2, 2012 Anyway, my survey consists of two ex soldiers who now both work security and one current soldier (not been on tour yet) who works in a warehouse: Ex Soldier 1: Toured Iraq, he's basically a psycho. He said he 'got lucky' because he got over there before they had to identify targets. Fully supports war/Afghanistan. Views Iraqi population as basically sub-human. Ex Soldier 2: Nice guy, toured Afghanistan. Fully supports both wars. Current Soldier: Nice guy, fully supports both conflicts. It's not a very good survey, but I can only do one at a time. I presume a survey of this nature into current soldiers wouldn't be allowed for propoganda reasons, which is understandable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonasjuice 0 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 For the record, not wanting to join the army doesn't mean you aren't allowed an opinion on wars we're involved in. I don't want to be an undercover cop cosying up to a load of smackheads to take down a drug cartel but I agree that someone somewhere should probably do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CleeToonFan 1 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Saying you're not in the army so aren't allowed an opinion on the war is as moronic as saying you're not in the government so aren't allowed an opinion on politics. Being a soldier doesn't make you for or againsr the war the same way it doesn't instantly make you a murderer or hero. Mere occupation has nothing to do with how you act or your opinions on anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3243 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 My point isn't about being pro or anti war. My point was about those who think soldiers lives are expendable and deaths acceptable for this purpose. I was pointing out that if you think it is so worthwhile to die for this cause why are you not doing it. Dulce et decorum est. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 People in this thread would shit their pants if they were dropped in a war zone for 5 min and be crying for their mams. I blame violent games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonasjuice 0 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 People in this thread would shit their pants if they were dropped in a war zone for 5 min and be crying for their mams. I blame violent games. Oh I totally agree, but again because you don't fancy/aren't cut out for a life in the army doesn't mean you're not allowed to form an opinion on whether or not a particular war is 'worthwhile'. Obviously the opinions of the people who are actually involved and have seen things first hand rightly hold a lot more weight but I disagree with 'if you think the war is worthwhile then sign up'. Nobody has said that soldiers lives are 'expendable' btw, but basically saying you agree with the war IS saying that you think it's worth the deaths of these soldiers, because the two will always go hand in hand no matter what the conflict. So the question of how many lives it's worth to accomplishment something is a relevant question, but will obviously and understandably provoke an emotive response from those that know people involved, which is what always makes these kind of debates pretty much impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted June 3, 2012 Author Share Posted June 3, 2012 I think 875000 is a nice round number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Modern warfare is basically for profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3243 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Oh I totally agree, but again because you don't fancy/aren't cut out for a life in the army doesn't mean you're not allowed to form an opinion on whether or not a particular war is 'worthwhile'. Obviously the opinions of the people who are actually involved and have seen things first hand rightly hold a lot more weight but I disagree with 'if you think the war is worthwhile then sign up'. Nobody has said that soldiers lives are 'expendable' btw, but basically saying you agree with the war IS saying that you think it's worth the deaths of these soldiers, because the two will always go hand in hand no matter what the conflict. So the question of how many lives it's worth to accomplishment something is a relevant question, but will obviously and understandably provoke an emotive response from those that know people involved, which is what always makes these kind of debates pretty much impossible. KSA and Leazes have both been intimating that the deaths of British soldiers was a worthwhile price to [ay to get rid of Saddam. I translate that into expendable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Interesting how the argument for the morality of war is framed entirely around the relatively small number of British 'victims'. No question whatsoever of the hundreds of thousands of middle eastern innocent victims being expendable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now