Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Imitation-Cheese, May 28, 2016.
I think Cheney might actually be the antichrist
You want to try and lecture me on Northern Ireland? Bloody Sunday investigations still happen, ex soldiers have been questioned by the PSNI earlier this year as part of their investigations. As a citizen of Northern Ireland I will tell you why no soldiers can stand trial for it, it will destabilise the region. IRA members were given pardons, to charge British soldiers would end in a strong reaction from unionists. It's a risk that can't be afforded.
In 1971, lots of potential IRA members were interned and interrogated, and while the methods used by the British are questionable (I personally don't agree with them), the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the methods were not torture.
As for the colluding with the "terrorist organisations" (you are referring to groups like the UDA and UVF btw since you don't know their names), the reason for that is pretty simple. They wanted Northern Ireland to remain British, the same way the army wanted. to use that as an example would mean everyone currently in the coalition against ISIS should stand trial for working with "moderate" groups.
The Northern Irish troubles had many, many atrocities and tragedies in it. As someone who's lived in the aftermath of it and witnessed the effect it still has on the community I know that. I can also say that actions taken by the British do not in anyway compare to the actions in Vietnam, most things were due to mistakes or poor intelligence. Yes, there were crimes and I do not approve of them, but again they weren't the massacres of entire innocent villages or chemical weapons.
As for the war on terror crimes you speak off, I'm sure you are aware of the mass investigations of British troops currently going on about the crimes committed during them.
Also the "America 1-0 Britain", is just vulgar. This isn't a sports match, this is a discussion on war crimes and the deaths of innocents which is in the millions and for you to treat it like a game just shows how immature you are.
V the British have committed just as much war crimes in modern history as the Americans both governments hands are equally steeped in innocent blood both governments have condemned millions of innocent men women and children to death. Both governments openly support the genocide of the Palestinian people. One is not worse than the other they both walk hand in hand into each "war on terror"
I already stated at the start that the British government should be held accountable, it was the first thing I said in regard to Britain. the rest of the discussion isn't about politicians or governments. It's about the actions of soldiers.
So does it make a difference if one army has killed more civilians than the other?
Agree! Lies = War = Increased Spendings = Increased Employment = Food and Shelter
It's the way in which it has happened. No matter what country you are from there will be incidents where a soldier kills an innocent for whatever reasons whether it is due to mental health issues that have been developed etc. There will also be incidents of people being beaten or punished in unacceptable ways. While both of these are terrible things that I do not approve off and hope all the culprits of it get punished, they just don't hold the same weight as an entire platoon walking into villages and shooting every man, woman and child they see, dropping chemical weapons on innocent people or mass ràpings.
From my point of view to compare those 2 things would be like comparing allied soldiers in ww2 to the Nazis. Both did at least some bad things, but it would be ridiculous to call one the allied troops as bad.
...well yeah lol depends how many more though and in what manner, civilians and innocent bystanders gonna get knocked off in every war
Military spending and war is the worst use of government resources I can think of. It's so inefficient and wasteful.
It creates far more problems than it solves
It is effective though since we are the biggest exporter of weapons. War allows us to showcase our technology and weapons. We make more money exporting it than exporting other commercial products. Anyway, we love money don't we?
Well, don't ask a loaded question or anything.
Yes, "we" love making money. But not at the expense of human life. At least not in my opinions.
And that money we make from selling weapons isn't due to us spending money on the military - you're referring to exports. I'm talking about domestic military spending.
I believe it does. The world will closed an eye. Ask the IDF since they have been doing it for decades.
I am going to reply to that here so not to distract from Postmans post that he posted. post.
I have to say the dynamic is really very different in Australia, or at least among the circles that I move in. My partner is an army officer, and so are all our friends. Except me.
Their reaction to the start of the War on Terror? Excitement. Fevered anticipation. The burning desire to prove themselves. Deployments to the Middle East are extremely competitive and sought after. The jostling for postings that facilitate deployments is constant.
They spend their lives training for a game: they don't want to spend it watching on the bench while everyone else plays. They want to do their part. They want to contribute, and for their service to have greater meaning.
Australian servicemen, of my acquaintance, can get more money on the outside. They stay because their life there has greater purpose.
Sorry daph but have to agree with cheese here most of our armed forces in the UK are kids who wouldn't have had any other option for employment other than to join the forces .....almost every single person I know in the army struggled at school however that was a good few years ago and the army has helped to educate and make better the life's of these people however as soon as the realise they ain't an uneducated 16 year old anymore that's when they try to leave.... (in most cases)
Regardless of your opinion when you sign on the line and the military spends whatever amount it spends on you for training you are basically owned by the military. You are then assigned to whatever and or wherever they see fit. Now did you speak of your radical opinions while serving and if you did how are you still walking? I'd would of thought that solders in your unit would've isolated you and or stomped you for not being trustworthy.
Your opinions would have been charged as conduct unbecoming a soldier.
Interesting Parsan, but two of our mates are lateral transfers from the UK. One has an enormous deployment history. And his attitude is no different to the rest.
It's easy to portray servicemen as being dumb, unemployed, and unskilled - as has been done throughout this thread. Maybe things are different in the US, or among the ORs in the UK.
But that's not universal. Take the Queens Royal Lancers. You think they are poor or stupid? Their mess fees supersede their salary. Personal wealth comes hand in hand with that regiment. Those men choose to be there, not for the money (they have enough of their own), but for the potential the position offers.
I guess my statement was too general daph....I agree the special forces generally set the bar higher ie:royal marine comandos and the raf but when it comes down to the TA and general military population there's definitely a increase in those who's choices were limited by achievments based on schooling. I don't think it's right to say only the dumb join the forces it may be that someone took the decision early to join the forces and didn't try at school knowing it's the easy option as I know some of my friends did.
So you're saying British soldiers have done none of this en mass in modern times? ...define modern times, how far back we going?
For the last few hundred years while there have been occasional and deplorable actions by servicemen from both countries they highlight that both countries armed services are generally well run disciplined and when incidents do occur they are dealt with.
Shortened quote, but I want the concept of all their opinions to remain valid. I take nothing from cheese, daph, or par...I believe all can be right on this. Daph, you spoke of officers in a general if I read you message right. Officers and enlisted are way diffrent. Or at least in the US. A college degree is required. I was offered two paid scholarships for military And accepted them. I however felt(and still do) that an effective leader needs to follow first. Soooo I enlisted and held my scholarships in abayance. During that enlistment I was selected for special forces (in a general sense) and "played with the big boys". I lost focus, was injured and medically discharged. Military for enlisted verses officer is totally diffrent. Yes they fight along side each other but it is diffrent. For the most part, enlisted staffing are those who don't have the chance to afford college.