This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
In reply to dale1968: Plenty more hired killers to fill his boots, though.
In reply to Chambers:
That was a strange response. He was a brilliant military leader and his handling of the liberation of Kuwait was virtually text book. As many have said the second Iraq war and all tyhe problems that arose from it would have been avoided if his political masters had let him finish the job first time ropund.
Care to expand?
That was a strange response. He was a brilliant military leader and his handling of the liberation of Kuwait was virtually text book. As many have said the second Iraq war and all tyhe problems that arose from it would have been avoided if his political masters had let him finish the job first time ropund.
Care to expand?
In reply to Chambers: anonymous and gutless, unlike norman
In reply to dale1968: i think this post is about us foreign policy. The USA picks and chooses who it "liberate" let's not forget that. I find cruise missiles anonymous and gutless if the truth be told. I will have to reserve half my bowel and bladder movements for thatcher though.
In reply to Chambers: very concise and well put
In reply to The Big Man: what would you have done? give him a kiss for invading Kuwait, or is that okay? I will never understand people who live under the shield of this country and only decries its actions, go live in Iraq if it so wonderful
In reply to dale1968: not given him the weapons in the first place. We made our bed. It's called hypocrisy. Perhaps you should open your eyes and mind and start thinking for yourself. No killer, on any side should ever be applauded.
In reply to dale1968: its comments like go live in Iraq that show the kind of person you really are.
In reply to The Big Man:
> (In reply to dale1968) its comments like go live in Iraq that show the kind of person you really are.
Go on then .....do tell?In reply to Trangia:
LOL, America f$ck ye, honestly though the US/UK liberated Kuwait, are you smoking something, eh oil mate thats all it was about, you know just like the second one.
> (In reply to Chambers)
>
> That was a strange response. He was a brilliant military leader and his handling of the liberation of Kuwait was virtually text book. As many have said the second Iraq war and all tyhe problems that arose from it would have been avoided if his political masters had let him finish the job first time ropund.
>
> Care to expand?
>
> That was a strange response. He was a brilliant military leader and his handling of the liberation of Kuwait was virtually text book. As many have said the second Iraq war and all tyhe problems that arose from it would have been avoided if his political masters had let him finish the job first time ropund.
>
> Care to expand?
LOL, America f$ck ye, honestly though the US/UK liberated Kuwait, are you smoking something, eh oil mate thats all it was about, you know just like the second one.
In reply to The Big Man: pray do tell I am all ears....
In reply to The Big Man:
Assuming that humans as a species are going to continue to reach the point where the only way we can resolve differences is with force; there remains a place for good military leaders, the quicker and more decisively warfare is prosecuted, the less destruction and death suffered by both sides.
To call professional soliders "killers" as if they're just hired guns for some gangster fails to appreciate the complexity of their place in the world today; Even if you feel their political puppet-masters are acting in bad faith.
Consider watching this: http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_van_uhm_why_i_chose_a_gun.html
> No killer, on any side should ever be applauded.
Assuming that humans as a species are going to continue to reach the point where the only way we can resolve differences is with force; there remains a place for good military leaders, the quicker and more decisively warfare is prosecuted, the less destruction and death suffered by both sides.
To call professional soliders "killers" as if they're just hired guns for some gangster fails to appreciate the complexity of their place in the world today; Even if you feel their political puppet-masters are acting in bad faith.
Consider watching this: http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_van_uhm_why_i_chose_a_gun.html
In reply to The Big Man:
Perhaps you would reveal just how many tanks and aircraft that the UK/US gave Saddam in the first place? Think T-tanks, Su's and Migs, Mi-helicopter gunships and Scud launchers etc. The UK/US gave small amounts of arms and assistance for the Iran-Iraq War but don't continue peddling an old myth please when the equipment in use against Kuwait tells a most obvious tale.
> (In reply to dale1968) not given him the weapons in the first place. We made our bed. It's called hypocrisy.
Perhaps you would reveal just how many tanks and aircraft that the UK/US gave Saddam in the first place? Think T-tanks, Su's and Migs, Mi-helicopter gunships and Scud launchers etc. The UK/US gave small amounts of arms and assistance for the Iran-Iraq War but don't continue peddling an old myth please when the equipment in use against Kuwait tells a most obvious tale.
In reply to Dirk Didler:
In 1992, Clinton sent troops into Somalia. In 1993, he reinforced that presence.
There is nothing in Somalia that anyone wants. Political stability in that part of Africa doesn't affect us in any way. You could cut that whole area off, sail it into the Indian Ocean and no one would miss it.
The troops sent were purely humanitarian and at great cost to the USA.
Somalia cost American lives. The public didn't like it at all and Clinton was forced to withdraw. It was felt that there was no reason for Americans to be losing their lives there. This was not felt by the administration...... but by the public at large.
In 1994, it became clear there were problems in Rwanda. Clinton's hands were tied. It's well documented that he'd liked to have sent troops there. He simply couldn't. It would have been political suicide.
Before having a pop at governments for not doing the right thing, perhaps we ought to look to ourselves to see what we do and don't lend our support to.
With regard to Norman Schwarzkopf, and soldiers in general, they go out and do a job which we task them to do.
I've met a few dickhead squaddies in pubs. They're often no different to any other lads their age, interested in beer, fighting and getting laid.
But that's in a pub.
Most soldiers are pretty consciencious and are not violent killers as you suggest. In fact, soldiers are generally quite the opposite. They see the worst of things and often react with compassion.
If you think any operations are ever carried out without weighing up the casualties on either side, and whether or not the specific attack should take place, you've no idea of what running an army is about. Norman Schwarzkopf was not some gun waving thug.
Regardless of the political aims of any particular campaign, the people we send in to fight are doing so on our behalf, because we are a democracy. As such, they deserve support and our understanding. They don't deserve to be called indiscriminate killers.
> (In reply to Trangia)
> [...]
>
> LOL, America f$ck ye, honestly though the US/UK liberated Kuwait, are you smoking something, eh oil mate thats all it was about, you know just like the second one.
> [...]
>
> LOL, America f$ck ye, honestly though the US/UK liberated Kuwait, are you smoking something, eh oil mate thats all it was about, you know just like the second one.
In 1992, Clinton sent troops into Somalia. In 1993, he reinforced that presence.
There is nothing in Somalia that anyone wants. Political stability in that part of Africa doesn't affect us in any way. You could cut that whole area off, sail it into the Indian Ocean and no one would miss it.
The troops sent were purely humanitarian and at great cost to the USA.
Somalia cost American lives. The public didn't like it at all and Clinton was forced to withdraw. It was felt that there was no reason for Americans to be losing their lives there. This was not felt by the administration...... but by the public at large.
In 1994, it became clear there were problems in Rwanda. Clinton's hands were tied. It's well documented that he'd liked to have sent troops there. He simply couldn't. It would have been political suicide.
Before having a pop at governments for not doing the right thing, perhaps we ought to look to ourselves to see what we do and don't lend our support to.
With regard to Norman Schwarzkopf, and soldiers in general, they go out and do a job which we task them to do.
I've met a few dickhead squaddies in pubs. They're often no different to any other lads their age, interested in beer, fighting and getting laid.
But that's in a pub.
Most soldiers are pretty consciencious and are not violent killers as you suggest. In fact, soldiers are generally quite the opposite. They see the worst of things and often react with compassion.
If you think any operations are ever carried out without weighing up the casualties on either side, and whether or not the specific attack should take place, you've no idea of what running an army is about. Norman Schwarzkopf was not some gun waving thug.
Regardless of the political aims of any particular campaign, the people we send in to fight are doing so on our behalf, because we are a democracy. As such, they deserve support and our understanding. They don't deserve to be called indiscriminate killers.
In reply to dek: someone who thinks I should go and live in Iraq because I disagree with his view on Stormin Norman.
I just find it very strange that British and United States "defence" forces spend most of their time and weapons in the middle east much to the profit of the post war USA arms economy. Which of course does not filter down to the people who are heavily taxed and have their own services cut to fund such bloodshed. Then profitable contracts to rebuild plundered nations are awarded to those that stand on the side of bloodshed, without any of that profit again filtering down to tbe taxpayer. That's a lie, I don't find it strange at all, it's makes perfect sense if your motives are power and greed.
The above is why I tend to loose the rag when generals who design bloodshed (ps it's usually the rank and file, and civillians who suffer the most) get applauded on what is after all a climbers forum during the winter season.
I sincerely hope that the opening statement answers your question and the rest reinforces it. If not may I suggest a stiff drink of, perhaps, say...open your eyes to what's going on in the world and don't be so naive you muppet.
The only stormin norman I applaud is the captain of a certain ferry on the Scottish West coast
I just find it very strange that British and United States "defence" forces spend most of their time and weapons in the middle east much to the profit of the post war USA arms economy. Which of course does not filter down to the people who are heavily taxed and have their own services cut to fund such bloodshed. Then profitable contracts to rebuild plundered nations are awarded to those that stand on the side of bloodshed, without any of that profit again filtering down to tbe taxpayer. That's a lie, I don't find it strange at all, it's makes perfect sense if your motives are power and greed.
The above is why I tend to loose the rag when generals who design bloodshed (ps it's usually the rank and file, and civillians who suffer the most) get applauded on what is after all a climbers forum during the winter season.
I sincerely hope that the opening statement answers your question and the rest reinforces it. If not may I suggest a stiff drink of, perhaps, say...open your eyes to what's going on in the world and don't be so naive you muppet.
The only stormin norman I applaud is the captain of a certain ferry on the Scottish West coast
In reply to The Big Man:
Big Man, is that long winded verbiage, your realisation we didn't sell Saddam, all thise Russian tanks and hardwear ?
Big Man, is that long winded verbiage, your realisation we didn't sell Saddam, all thise Russian tanks and hardwear ?
In reply to dek: you did say you were all ears. Just because we didn't sell sadam one thing doesn't mean we didn't sell him other things. You seem to be using Tonh Blair's logic there. A bit of an insult to the forums intelligence.
In reply to dek: may I suggest national geographic vol 167 no 1 january 1985. A time when Iraq was the friend (sadam). It gives an intersting insight into positive propaganda, ah how the tables turn.
In reply to dek: ps the term long winded verbiage is in itself verbose, if that's your biggest criticism of my response then it seems you got what you asked for and are indeed clutching at straws.
In reply to The Big Man: it was a flippant remark, nothing more, the Italians sold far more hardware I saw no British armaments, Russian and Italian by the bucket full, particularly millions of Italian mines
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80...
In reply to dale1968: you were looking in the wrong place, sometimes you can't see the wood for trees. Enjoy finding the obvious, (remember history and truth are often written by the victors) perhaps in your search you may find some liberating truths. If stuck, I'll give you a hint tomorrow. Ps it would be nice if a certain person retracted the go live in Iraq comment.
In reply to The Big Man:
So you accept that you were talking pish about the West selling Iraq shitloads of weapons. Good to hear that.
In fact to my knowledge we(the UK) sold Iraq non lethal military hardware like radios and stuff at the start of the Iran/Iraq war. My own (British owned) employer made a fair bit of dosh out of it IIRC which it's employees, people like me, would have benefited from.
Yep.
> (In reply to dek) you did say you were all ears. Just because we didn't sell sadam one thing doesn't mean we didn't sell him other things.
So you accept that you were talking pish about the West selling Iraq shitloads of weapons. Good to hear that.
In fact to my knowledge we(the UK) sold Iraq non lethal military hardware like radios and stuff at the start of the Iran/Iraq war. My own (British owned) employer made a fair bit of dosh out of it IIRC which it's employees, people like me, would have benefited from.
> A bit of an insult to the forums intelligence.
Yep.
In reply to Removed User: who sold the materials for chemical weapons, uniforms, we are very careful not to be blamed, but the uk and usa both have dirtty bloodied hands. As you say. To the best of your knowledge.
In reply to Removed User: could you quantify shitloads please.
In reply to Removed User: if you can't see the hypocrisy of aiding a country when they have a common enemy to ourselves then fighting that country when they pick their own enemy. Well that is an insult to everyone's intelligence. Sadam done our dirty work then we turned on him when he decided to do his own. Puppetmasters revenge for the puppet thinking for himself. Its that simple. Stormin Norman was just the hired killer for the puppetmasters revenge. Which is what this post is about and why he shouldn't be applauded. End of!
In reply to The Big man. Ps it would be nice if a certain person retracted the go live in Iraq comment.
If you read my previous post you would see that I said it was a flippant remark and meant nothing
Are you trying to give me quasi hints on the path of life? I am 45 and have seen a lot of life and I am well read on the middle east, let alone having been out there a dozen times
If you read my previous post you would see that I said it was a flippant remark and meant nothing
Are you trying to give me quasi hints on the path of life? I am 45 and have seen a lot of life and I am well read on the middle east, let alone having been out there a dozen times
In reply to The Big Man:
'Big Man' you are a blethering shite.
Btw
I would have strung up Saddam for the malicious act of burning the oil fields, and the following atmospheric pollution!
'Big Man' you are a blethering shite.
Btw
I would have strung up Saddam for the malicious act of burning the oil fields, and the following atmospheric pollution!
In reply to dek: I would have hung those that put him in that position in the first place. Quite pathetic that once again disagreement on ukc falls into disrespect. Have a great and peaceful new year.
In reply to dale1968: apologies, I thought you were refering to your verbose comment rather than go out to Iraq. Ambiguity can be a dangerous thing. And no I'm not trying to lecture you. Just expressing my opinion on a subject you brought up on a public climbers forum. It just so happens to be a strong one. I'm sure you understand and respect that. All the best for 2013
In reply to The Big Man: and a happy new year to you
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
Ah where to start,what does Somalia have to do with Kuwait? where did i have a pop at goverments?
Can you explain at what point i suggest that most soldiers are in fact violent killers(having been one myself i'll say to you that most folk who join up are looking for a bit of adventure) lastly though i'd have to say to you that you need to stop being so naive about why countries go to war, it's very rarely for anything other than selfess reasons, if you want an idea of Somalia by the way get a map and look north, it's the same reason we have ships there just know.
> (In reply to Dirk Didler)
> [...]
>
> In 1992, Clinton sent troops into Somalia. In 1993, he reinforced that presence.
> There is nothing in Somalia that anyone wants. Political stability in that part of Africa doesn't affect us in any way. You could cut that whole area off, sail it into the Indian Ocean and no one would miss it.
> The troops sent were purely humanitarian and at great cost to the USA.
> Somalia cost American lives. The public didn't like it at all and Clinton was forced to withdraw. It was felt that there was no reason for Americans to be losing their lives there. This was not felt by the administration...... but by the public at large.
>
> In 1994, it became clear there were problems in Rwanda. Clinton's hands were tied. It's well documented that he'd liked to have sent troops there. He simply couldn't. It would have been political suicide.
>
> Before having a pop at governments for not doing the right thing, perhaps we ought to look to ourselves to see what we do and don't lend our support to.
>
>
> With regard to Norman Schwarzkopf, and soldiers in general, they go out and do a job which we task them to do.
> I've met a few dickhead squaddies in pubs. They're often no different to any other lads their age, interested in beer, fighting and getting laid.
> But that's in a pub.
> Most soldiers are pretty consciencious and are not violent killers as you suggest. In fact, soldiers are generally quite the opposite. They see the worst of things and often react with compassion.
> If you think any operations are ever carried out without weighing up the casualties on either side, and whether or not the specific attack should take place, you've no idea of what running an army is about. Norman Schwarzkopf was not some gun waving thug.
>
> Regardless of the political aims of any particular campaign, the people we send in to fight are doing so on our behalf, because we are a democracy. As such, they deserve support and our understanding. They don't deserve to be called indiscriminate killers.
> [...]
>
> In 1992, Clinton sent troops into Somalia. In 1993, he reinforced that presence.
> There is nothing in Somalia that anyone wants. Political stability in that part of Africa doesn't affect us in any way. You could cut that whole area off, sail it into the Indian Ocean and no one would miss it.
> The troops sent were purely humanitarian and at great cost to the USA.
> Somalia cost American lives. The public didn't like it at all and Clinton was forced to withdraw. It was felt that there was no reason for Americans to be losing their lives there. This was not felt by the administration...... but by the public at large.
>
> In 1994, it became clear there were problems in Rwanda. Clinton's hands were tied. It's well documented that he'd liked to have sent troops there. He simply couldn't. It would have been political suicide.
>
> Before having a pop at governments for not doing the right thing, perhaps we ought to look to ourselves to see what we do and don't lend our support to.
>
>
> With regard to Norman Schwarzkopf, and soldiers in general, they go out and do a job which we task them to do.
> I've met a few dickhead squaddies in pubs. They're often no different to any other lads their age, interested in beer, fighting and getting laid.
> But that's in a pub.
> Most soldiers are pretty consciencious and are not violent killers as you suggest. In fact, soldiers are generally quite the opposite. They see the worst of things and often react with compassion.
> If you think any operations are ever carried out without weighing up the casualties on either side, and whether or not the specific attack should take place, you've no idea of what running an army is about. Norman Schwarzkopf was not some gun waving thug.
>
> Regardless of the political aims of any particular campaign, the people we send in to fight are doing so on our behalf, because we are a democracy. As such, they deserve support and our understanding. They don't deserve to be called indiscriminate killers.
Ah where to start,what does Somalia have to do with Kuwait? where did i have a pop at goverments?
Can you explain at what point i suggest that most soldiers are in fact violent killers(having been one myself i'll say to you that most folk who join up are looking for a bit of adventure) lastly though i'd have to say to you that you need to stop being so naive about why countries go to war, it's very rarely for anything other than selfess reasons, if you want an idea of Somalia by the way get a map and look north, it's the same reason we have ships there just know.
In reply to The Big Man:
Happy New Year to you too 'Big Man'... Just don't go starting any tribal wars!
Happy New Year to you too 'Big Man'... Just don't go starting any tribal wars!
In reply to Dirk Didler:
And what has that got to do with whether or not he was a good general? Why not keep to the subject?
And what has that got to do with whether or not he was a good general? Why not keep to the subject?
In reply to The Big Man:
Well you are wrong. It was about Stormin Norman and his military record. You fail to mention that.
> (In reply to dale1968) i think this post is about us foreign policy.
Well you are wrong. It was about Stormin Norman and his military record. You fail to mention that.
In reply to Trangia:
Top tip. Read the rest of the thread before making a comment. But then good officers just follow orders eh? Ps the it was an open discussion the OP simply reported stormin Norman was dead and left it for others to expand. Your blind stupidity failed to notice that. Away back to yer meths. Meths/blindness did you see what i did there. Of course not. Ejit
> (In reply to The Big Man)
> [...]
>
> Well you are wrong. It was about Stormin Norman and his military record. You fail to mention that.
> [...]
>
> Well you are wrong. It was about Stormin Norman and his military record. You fail to mention that.
Top tip. Read the rest of the thread before making a comment. But then good officers just follow orders eh? Ps the it was an open discussion the OP simply reported stormin Norman was dead and left it for others to expand. Your blind stupidity failed to notice that. Away back to yer meths. Meths/blindness did you see what i did there. Of course not. Ejit
In reply to Dirk Didler:
Somalia has nothing to do with Kuwait. I was showing that in fact, governments do try to intervene even when there is no financial benefit to them and this is often met with resistance from the public.
I am not naive about why we go to war, I am saying that the wars we have over oil and foreign policy are far more accepted than loss of life on some police actions and military interventions where there is no 'upside'
We have ships in Somalia now because of the piracy threat, and their responses are limited to dealing with this threat. We had no ships in the area before this threat. We are not there because of political instability.
My other comments about support of our forces was general and in reply to other posts, I didn't want to post seperately.
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> Ah where to start,what does Somalia have to do with Kuwait? where did i have a pop at goverments?
> Can you explain at what point i suggest that most soldiers are in fact violent killers(having been one myself i'll say to you that most folk who join up are looking for a bit of adventure) lastly though i'd have to say to you that you need to stop being so naive about why countries go to war, it's very rarely for anything other than selfess reasons, if you want an idea of Somalia by the way get a map and look north, it's the same reason we have ships there just know.
> [...]
>
> Ah where to start,what does Somalia have to do with Kuwait? where did i have a pop at goverments?
> Can you explain at what point i suggest that most soldiers are in fact violent killers(having been one myself i'll say to you that most folk who join up are looking for a bit of adventure) lastly though i'd have to say to you that you need to stop being so naive about why countries go to war, it's very rarely for anything other than selfess reasons, if you want an idea of Somalia by the way get a map and look north, it's the same reason we have ships there just know.
Somalia has nothing to do with Kuwait. I was showing that in fact, governments do try to intervene even when there is no financial benefit to them and this is often met with resistance from the public.
I am not naive about why we go to war, I am saying that the wars we have over oil and foreign policy are far more accepted than loss of life on some police actions and military interventions where there is no 'upside'
We have ships in Somalia now because of the piracy threat, and their responses are limited to dealing with this threat. We had no ships in the area before this threat. We are not there because of political instability.
My other comments about support of our forces was general and in reply to other posts, I didn't want to post seperately.
In reply to Trangia:At what point did i mention anything about being a good or bad general? free advice daftey, try reading it first.
In reply to Dirk Didler:
Exactly. As I originally asked, why didn't you keep to the subject?
> (In reply to Trangia)At what point did i mention anything about being a good or bad general?
Exactly. As I originally asked, why didn't you keep to the subject?
In reply to The Big Man:
Well Big Man, you obviously have no idea how to debate as you have to resort to throwing out insults. The rest of the thread, as you put it, didn't exist when you jumped to conclusions as to what it was about. Forgive me for imagining it was about the death of Stormin Norman.....
Well Big Man, you obviously have no idea how to debate as you have to resort to throwing out insults. The rest of the thread, as you put it, didn't exist when you jumped to conclusions as to what it was about. Forgive me for imagining it was about the death of Stormin Norman.....
In reply to Trangia: you're forgiven,
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
Not on my behalf, nor do i "task" them to do anything.
> With regard to Norman Schwarzkopf, and soldiers in general, they go out and do a job which we task them to do.
>
>the people we send in to fight are doing so on our behalf>Not on my behalf, nor do i "task" them to do anything.
In reply to dale1968: I didn't meet him personally but I was in tent when he was giving a briefing and talking to some US Marines in Kuwait. We had just come down from the hills on Kurdistan/Iraq border.
I was impressed with him....very smart guy, very clear and inspiring in his confidence, all backed up and well prepped with meticulous planning.
I was impressed with him....very smart guy, very clear and inspiring in his confidence, all backed up and well prepped with meticulous planning.
In reply to Trangia:
oh really? The reason his political masters didnt let him was because they saw that defeating Saddam would be the easy bit compared to dealing with the aftermath.
Which was precisely how the second war turned out.
> That was a strange response. He was a brilliant military leader and his handling of the liberation of Kuwait was virtually text book. As many have said the second Iraq war and all tyhe problems that arose from it would have been avoided if his political masters had let him finish the job first time ropund.
oh really? The reason his political masters didnt let him was because they saw that defeating Saddam would be the easy bit compared to dealing with the aftermath.
Which was precisely how the second war turned out.
In reply to abr1966:
I can quite understand why some aren't exactly mournful at his passing. The point stands that the US and the UK were instrumental in Saddam's rise to power, and while that occurred in the 60s, its no huge stretch to see the first Gulf War as a continuation of the same games taking place 30 years before. The way we played off Iran against Iran, the cosyness of the US with the Saudi regime, and Norm's own personal friendships with various elements of that regime (its many years since I read his autobiography, but he seemed incredibly comfortable and matey with people who are surely not that different from Saddam).
No doubt a very capable officer and general, willing and able to carry out the wishes of his chiefs. But given his position and what he was part of (Highway of Death being just one small, but visual example), I see no reason why everyone should be expected to view him as a saint.
I can quite understand why some aren't exactly mournful at his passing. The point stands that the US and the UK were instrumental in Saddam's rise to power, and while that occurred in the 60s, its no huge stretch to see the first Gulf War as a continuation of the same games taking place 30 years before. The way we played off Iran against Iran, the cosyness of the US with the Saudi regime, and Norm's own personal friendships with various elements of that regime (its many years since I read his autobiography, but he seemed incredibly comfortable and matey with people who are surely not that different from Saddam).
No doubt a very capable officer and general, willing and able to carry out the wishes of his chiefs. But given his position and what he was part of (Highway of Death being just one small, but visual example), I see no reason why everyone should be expected to view him as a saint.
In reply to David Martin: I'm not in disagreement with you about the politics.....I think he was a good soldier and it was in that context that I listened to him speak...
In reply to dale1968:
Ingrate! I saved your thread from sinking into obscurity and that's the thanks I get? How is referring to those who get paid to kill as 'hired killers' gutless? Please explain? BTW, Chambers is my name, so what's with the 'anonymous' charge? Did you want my address and phone number as well? Tsk!
> (In reply to Chambers) anonymous and gutless, unlike norman
Ingrate! I saved your thread from sinking into obscurity and that's the thanks I get? How is referring to those who get paid to kill as 'hired killers' gutless? Please explain? BTW, Chambers is my name, so what's with the 'anonymous' charge? Did you want my address and phone number as well? Tsk!
In reply to Chambers:
It's not gutless per se; but it is disingenuous, Professional soldiers are not just killing machines they serve a complex role which increasingly focuses on de-escalating violence rather than perpetuating it.
We pay those men and women not a lot, to risk their very lives and to put their souls at hazard in order to protect us... You may not agree with the politics behind how they're deployed*, but that's an issue you have with our democratically elected leaders.
I don't believe that we should be glorifying and exalting soldiers or combat**, that leads down a dangerous road... But they at least deserve our respect for doing a job which is difficult, dangerous and unfortunately still necessary.
*It is always worth remembering that warfare between great powers is largely a thing of the past, the primary danger to peace and stability in the world today is failed or failing states, hence the value of intervening in seemingly far away countries.
**I have always felt uneasy with the name of "Help for Heroes" for this reason, Heroism is a rare thing and one worth celebrating using that word as a blanket term referring to all returning service personnel rather than the more neutral wording characteristic of say the Royal British Legion has always struck me as the thin end of the wedge, as pertains to glorifying warfare... I can't really fault the aims and objectives of the charity though.
> (In reply to dale1968)
>How is referring to those who get paid to kill as 'hired killers' gutless?It's not gutless per se; but it is disingenuous, Professional soldiers are not just killing machines they serve a complex role which increasingly focuses on de-escalating violence rather than perpetuating it.
We pay those men and women not a lot, to risk their very lives and to put their souls at hazard in order to protect us... You may not agree with the politics behind how they're deployed*, but that's an issue you have with our democratically elected leaders.
I don't believe that we should be glorifying and exalting soldiers or combat**, that leads down a dangerous road... But they at least deserve our respect for doing a job which is difficult, dangerous and unfortunately still necessary.
*It is always worth remembering that warfare between great powers is largely a thing of the past, the primary danger to peace and stability in the world today is failed or failing states, hence the value of intervening in seemingly far away countries.
**I have always felt uneasy with the name of "Help for Heroes" for this reason, Heroism is a rare thing and one worth celebrating using that word as a blanket term referring to all returning service personnel rather than the more neutral wording characteristic of say the Royal British Legion has always struck me as the thin end of the wedge, as pertains to glorifying warfare... I can't really fault the aims and objectives of the charity though.
In reply to KellyKettle: > (In reply to Chambers)
Agreed. Indeed, many soldiers never even see open warfare and are, rather, involved in the support and maintenance of those who actually do the killing. But that doesn't escape the fact that the armed forces exist, ultimately, as a means by which one state can forcibly coerce another. And what that boils down to is killing, or the threat of killing. If you remove the actual killing from the equation then there is nothing done by soldiers that couldn't be done equally as well - if not better - by civilians. Your assertion that there is an increasing emphasis on de-escalation is a flimsy one. It's fair, perhaps, to say that there haven't been any major conflicts on the level of WW2 since erm...lets see...WW2 but that's not saying much at all. 70 years is not that long. Certainly not long enough to be identifying anything that could be described as any kind of major change in the way in which war is conducted historically. The threat of global war has not gone away. In fact, as the almost continual spread of conflict between nation states hots up, it's actually more likely to happen now than anytime since the fall of state capitalism in Russia.
Well, first of all I'd want to question your use of language. 'We'? Who is this 'we' that you speak of? Certainly not me. Governments pay for armies, on behalf of the ruling class that they represent. And how is war hazardous to souls? I thought souls were indestructible? (Actually, I'm just being lighthearted there. There are no souls!) On the subject of democratically elected leaders I'll have much to say. But for now it's enough to point out that governments don't concern themselves with democracy overmuch, and that I don't blame governments for war. Wars are caused by the economic competition between nation states that is inherent in capitalism and one government is much the same as another. Changing leaders - and who needs those? - changes precisely nothing.
>
>
> It's not gutless per se; but it is disingenuous,
You might want to argue that I'm being disingenuous, but I'm afraid you'd need some evidence to support your assertion. I think that you mean that you disagree with my position, rather than that you think I'm being insincere about it...> Professional soldiers are not just killing machines they serve a complex role which increasingly focuses on de-escalating violence rather than perpetuating it.
Agreed. Indeed, many soldiers never even see open warfare and are, rather, involved in the support and maintenance of those who actually do the killing. But that doesn't escape the fact that the armed forces exist, ultimately, as a means by which one state can forcibly coerce another. And what that boils down to is killing, or the threat of killing. If you remove the actual killing from the equation then there is nothing done by soldiers that couldn't be done equally as well - if not better - by civilians. Your assertion that there is an increasing emphasis on de-escalation is a flimsy one. It's fair, perhaps, to say that there haven't been any major conflicts on the level of WW2 since erm...lets see...WW2 but that's not saying much at all. 70 years is not that long. Certainly not long enough to be identifying anything that could be described as any kind of major change in the way in which war is conducted historically. The threat of global war has not gone away. In fact, as the almost continual spread of conflict between nation states hots up, it's actually more likely to happen now than anytime since the fall of state capitalism in Russia.
> We pay those men and women not a lot, to risk their very lives and to put their souls at hazard in order to protect us... You may not agree with the politics behind how they're deployed*, but that's an issue you have with our democratically elected leaders.
Well, first of all I'd want to question your use of language. 'We'? Who is this 'we' that you speak of? Certainly not me. Governments pay for armies, on behalf of the ruling class that they represent. And how is war hazardous to souls? I thought souls were indestructible? (Actually, I'm just being lighthearted there. There are no souls!) On the subject of democratically elected leaders I'll have much to say. But for now it's enough to point out that governments don't concern themselves with democracy overmuch, and that I don't blame governments for war. Wars are caused by the economic competition between nation states that is inherent in capitalism and one government is much the same as another. Changing leaders - and who needs those? - changes precisely nothing.
>
> I don't believe that we should be glorifying and exalting soldiers or combat**, that leads down a dangerous road... But they at least deserve our respect for doing a job which is difficult, dangerous and unfortunately still necessary.
Several friends of mine are members or ex-members of the armed forces. One of my climbing partners has spent many hours telling me of the horrors that he experienced in Iraq. No question about his bravery and courage. But you'll never convince me that the invasion of other countries is necessary. Anymore than you'll convince that capitalism, which is the cause of modern war, is necessary.>
> *It is always worth remembering that warfare between great powers is largely a thing of the past, the primary danger to peace and stability in the world today is failed or failing states, hence the value of intervening in seemingly far away countries.
I think I've already covered this. Politicians and other snake-oil vendors liked to argue that WW1 was going to be the war to end wars...Those who seek to control us are fond of attempting to convince us that things have changed and capitalism is somehow different now. It isn't true. The current skirmishes may yet be seen, in years to come, as the harbinger of yet another spree of global destruction in the name of profit.> **I have always felt uneasy with the name of "Help for Heroes" for this reason, Heroism is a rare thing and one worth celebrating using that word as a blanket term referring to all returning service personnel rather than the more neutral wording characteristic of say the Royal British Legion has always struck me as the thin end of the wedge, as pertains to glorifying warfare... I can't really fault the aims and objectives of the charity though.
Hard to fault the aims and objectives of any organisation that sets out to alleviate suffering. Problem is none of them address the roots causes of the problems they set out to alleviate.In reply to Chambers: thanks for the bump
In the real world warfare is part of life, now would I prefer a world without it? yes, but to blame a religion or a political system is wrong, Humans kill without money or motive, there are no easy solutions if you have the answers please don't just share it with UKC, tony, and banki, could both do with advice, but seen as we are incapable of even agreeing the height of a hedgerow, there wont be any quick solutions. but til then the likes of Norman will do there best, and its because of generals like monty and norman that we get to lie in bed flapping our jaws about history
In the real world warfare is part of life, now would I prefer a world without it? yes, but to blame a religion or a political system is wrong, Humans kill without money or motive, there are no easy solutions if you have the answers please don't just share it with UKC, tony, and banki, could both do with advice, but seen as we are incapable of even agreeing the height of a hedgerow, there wont be any quick solutions. but til then the likes of Norman will do there best, and its because of generals like monty and norman that we get to lie in bed flapping our jaws about history
In reply to dale1968: Are you seriously suggesting that discourse on the causes of war would be impossible without people to fight wars? I can only assume that you are implying that wars against other nations are fought to protect our highly-dubious 'democracy' and 'freedom of speech'? Nothing could be further from the truth. Have a look at what one general has to say on the subject...http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
I don't think that there's anything in 'human nature' that causes war. I don't see 'human nature' as something that is fixed, but rather it is something that is adaptable and learned - a response to material conditions.
Do you really think that two invasions of Iraq have made the world a safer place?
I'm not blaming religion or a political system for causing wars. I'm pointing the finger at an economic system that sets one nations' interests against all other nations' interests. And yes, you're right about there being no quick solutions, but there will be no solution so long as the cause of war is left intact.
I don't think that there's anything in 'human nature' that causes war. I don't see 'human nature' as something that is fixed, but rather it is something that is adaptable and learned - a response to material conditions.
Do you really think that two invasions of Iraq have made the world a safer place?
I'm not blaming religion or a political system for causing wars. I'm pointing the finger at an economic system that sets one nations' interests against all other nations' interests. And yes, you're right about there being no quick solutions, but there will be no solution so long as the cause of war is left intact.
In reply to Chambers: but your attributing wars and linking capitalism as the cause, are you serious that If there was no capitalism there would be no wars?
as I said its a human response, every tribe on the planet does it, power is sometimes just about that, you fail to understand people, as long as men wish to hold power, be it religious or political, warfare will exist, and were a long way from any utopia.
Was Iraq a safe place to live in? I think not, halabja proves the point,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
the notion that the world is a safe place is one that we have the privilege of, for Kurds and Shias it was not, did two gulf wars make the world a safer place, no, but life's not so cut and dried, UN sanctions did not work, IE politics had failed
as I said its a human response, every tribe on the planet does it, power is sometimes just about that, you fail to understand people, as long as men wish to hold power, be it religious or political, warfare will exist, and were a long way from any utopia.
Was Iraq a safe place to live in? I think not, halabja proves the point,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
the notion that the world is a safe place is one that we have the privilege of, for Kurds and Shias it was not, did two gulf wars make the world a safer place, no, but life's not so cut and dried, UN sanctions did not work, IE politics had failed
In reply to Chambers: The removal of saddam, in the long term, can only be seen as a good thing. I've yet to meet an Iraqi who isn't pleased he's gone, even if they didn't support the invasions.. the first was generally very well supported globally.
BTW that's a shit website.. that's as rationale as I can be early in the morning..
You've just searched crackpot websites which support your view..
BTW that's a shit website.. that's as rationale as I can be early in the morning..
You've just searched crackpot websites which support your view..
In reply to IainRUK: Perhaps when you've woken up a bit you can have another look and see what it actually is. It's a link to a text written by a Major General in the US Marines in 1935. Straight from the horse's mouth, in other words. Nice to see someone making irrational assertions admitting to being irrational, however!
The removal of a despotic dictator is, on the face of it, a good thing. Unfortunately, things are rarely that simple and regime change was not, in fact, what the invasion was about. The long-term ramifications of the invasion are impossible to know, but a lasting peace and prosperity in Iraq looks highly unlikely.
The removal of a despotic dictator is, on the face of it, a good thing. Unfortunately, things are rarely that simple and regime change was not, in fact, what the invasion was about. The long-term ramifications of the invasion are impossible to know, but a lasting peace and prosperity in Iraq looks highly unlikely.
In reply to dale1968:
No, and that's not what I said. Capitalism has only existed as a dominant global economic system for a short time. There were wars in feudal societies just as there were wars in classical antiquity and, indeed, in man's prehistory. But it's important, I think, to look for causes. What I suggested was that capitalism was the cause of war in modern society. And what I would suggest is that if capitalism were replaced with a system of society based on the common ownership of the means of production rather than the minority class-ownership of the means of production as we have under capitalism, then the cause of war would be eliminated.
But the notion of one person or one group of people having economic and thus political power over another is a relatively new development in human societies. There are many examples of primitive human societies not being bellicose or driven to conflict. So if it's true that not all human societies generate conflict and war then the 'human nature' argument is clearly false.
A common rejoinder to that argument is to ask where those weapons came from? But I don't think that - apart from making the small point that war is business - it answers much at all. Certainly, people are better off under so-called liberal democracies, but the establishment of liberal democracies across the world will do nothing to remove the economic drive towards war.
I don't think it's possible to see the world as a safe place unless you adopt an ostrich mentality. Clearly, it's probably safer here than many places, but you surely can't argue that the threat of 'terrorist' attacks as a result of interference in other nation's affairs has been reduced in any way?
> (In reply to Chambers) but your attributing wars and linking capitalism as the cause, are you serious that If there was no capitalism there would be no wars?
No, and that's not what I said. Capitalism has only existed as a dominant global economic system for a short time. There were wars in feudal societies just as there were wars in classical antiquity and, indeed, in man's prehistory. But it's important, I think, to look for causes. What I suggested was that capitalism was the cause of war in modern society. And what I would suggest is that if capitalism were replaced with a system of society based on the common ownership of the means of production rather than the minority class-ownership of the means of production as we have under capitalism, then the cause of war would be eliminated.
> as I said its a human response, every tribe on the planet does it, power is sometimes just about that, you fail to understand people, as long as men wish to hold power, be it religious or political, warfare will exist, and were a long way from any utopia.
But the notion of one person or one group of people having economic and thus political power over another is a relatively new development in human societies. There are many examples of primitive human societies not being bellicose or driven to conflict. So if it's true that not all human societies generate conflict and war then the 'human nature' argument is clearly false.
> Was Iraq a safe place to live in? I think not, halabja proves the point,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
A common rejoinder to that argument is to ask where those weapons came from? But I don't think that - apart from making the small point that war is business - it answers much at all. Certainly, people are better off under so-called liberal democracies, but the establishment of liberal democracies across the world will do nothing to remove the economic drive towards war.
> the notion that the world is a safe place is one that we have the privilege of, for Kurds and Shias it was not, did two gulf wars make the world a safer place, no, but life's not so cut and dried, UN sanctions did not work, IE politics had failed
I don't think it's possible to see the world as a safe place unless you adopt an ostrich mentality. Clearly, it's probably safer here than many places, but you surely can't argue that the threat of 'terrorist' attacks as a result of interference in other nation's affairs has been reduced in any way?
In reply to Chambers:
Sweet baby cheeses!
After reading this I've ripped up my list of traditional get-fitter-lose-weight list of New Year's Resolutions and replaced it with the single one of not to get sucked into wasting any more of my life reading idiotic threads like this one where utter boll*cks gets dressed up in pseudo intellectualism.
PS Feel free to be as insulting as you like in your replies as I'm starting my resolution early and so will not see them.
> (In reply to dale1968)
> [...]
>
And what I would suggest is that if capitalism were replaced with a system of society based on the common ownership of the means of production.... > [...]
>
Sweet baby cheeses!
After reading this I've ripped up my list of traditional get-fitter-lose-weight list of New Year's Resolutions and replaced it with the single one of not to get sucked into wasting any more of my life reading idiotic threads like this one where utter boll*cks gets dressed up in pseudo intellectualism.
PS Feel free to be as insulting as you like in your replies as I'm starting my resolution early and so will not see them.
In reply to Chambers:
Really? So what were all those primitive societies doing when they were endlessly warring?
> (In reply to dale1968)
> [...]
> [...]
>
> But the notion of one person or one group of people having economic and thus political power over another is a relatively new development in human societies.
>> [...]
> [...]
>
> But the notion of one person or one group of people having economic and thus political power over another is a relatively new development in human societies.
Really? So what were all those primitive societies doing when they were endlessly warring?
In reply to Postmanpat: What makes you think that primitive human societies were endlessly warring?
In reply to The Big Man:
we didn't supply his weapons, Russia & china & to a much lesser extent south Africa supplied his weapons.
> (In reply to dale1968) not given him the weapons in the first place. We made our bed. It's called hypocrisy. Perhaps you should open your eyes and mind and start thinking for yourself. No killer, on any side should ever be applauded.
we didn't supply his weapons, Russia & china & to a much lesser extent south Africa supplied his weapons.
In reply to skarabrae: Mostly true. About 1% of armaments came from America. But that's only part of the story. Civilian American helicopters were donated to the Iraqi regime and were later used for military purposes. The CIA assisted with battle planning, and Donald Rumsfeld got his disgusting fingers quite dirty, too.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemica...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemica...
In reply to Chambers:
Pinker, Keeley and other anthropological works. They weren't all fighting all the time but there was a lot of it going on. Do ou dispute this and if so on what basis?
Incidentally chimpanzees get violent when their resources become limited. Are thy capitalists?
> (In reply to Postmanpat) What makes you think that primitive human societies were endlessly warring?
Pinker, Keeley and other anthropological works. They weren't all fighting all the time but there was a lot of it going on. Do ou dispute this and if so on what basis?
Incidentally chimpanzees get violent when their resources become limited. Are thy capitalists?
In reply to Postmanpat: Ah. Bit of a climbdown from the Postie, there. Not enough gear in your argument after all? I'm familiar with the work of both of the writers that you mention, and I'm widely-read in the field of anthropology in general. Pinker and Keeley are easily discredited, and the field of anthropology is rife with writers with a particular political axe to grind...
I don't dispute that tribes have entered into conflict over scarce resources, but for every bellicose tribe there is an example of a tribe that lived in harmony on the basis of mutual co-operation. So the idea that there's something in human nature that is violent and aggressive is clearly a false one.
And no, quite apart from the fact that comparisons between chimpanzees and humans are tenuous at best - there's hundreds of thousands of years of evolution separating us as species - no other primate has ever been discovered to be an owner of capital!
I don't dispute that tribes have entered into conflict over scarce resources, but for every bellicose tribe there is an example of a tribe that lived in harmony on the basis of mutual co-operation. So the idea that there's something in human nature that is violent and aggressive is clearly a false one.
And no, quite apart from the fact that comparisons between chimpanzees and humans are tenuous at best - there's hundreds of thousands of years of evolution separating us as species - no other primate has ever been discovered to be an owner of capital!
In reply to dale1968:
Schwarzkopf was a good general. He carried out the instructions of his democratically-elected masters and achieved the Coalition's war aims with minimal losses.
Kuwait was liberated from a cruel and oppressive invader. It was no mean achievement to hold the coalition together under war conditions.
Schwarzkopf was a good general. He carried out the instructions of his democratically-elected masters and achieved the Coalition's war aims with minimal losses.
Kuwait was liberated from a cruel and oppressive invader. It was no mean achievement to hold the coalition together under war conditions.
In reply to Chambers: 'Pinker and Keeley are easily discredited' ... Oh enlighten us, please do. Harvard must be kicking themselves that they gave tenure to a dud like Pinker when they could have had you.
In reply to Chambers:
On the basis of the argument you are trying to present the idea is at best a debatable one. There is nothing clear about it at all.
I imagine that fighting for resources, females and habitat don't count then?
> (In reply to Postmanpat) Ah. Bit of a climbdown from the Postie, there. Not enough gear in your argument after all? I'm familiar with the work of both of the writers that you mention, and I'm widely-read in the field of anthropology in general. Pinker and Keeley are easily discredited, and the field of anthropology is rife with writers with a particular political axe to grind...
>
I assume that comment was tongue in cheek...?>
> I don't dispute that tribes have entered into conflict over scarce resources, but for every bellicose tribe there is an example of a tribe that lived in harmony on the basis of mutual co-operation. So the idea that there's something in human nature that is violent and aggressive is clearly a false one.
>
>
On the basis of the argument you are trying to present the idea is at best a debatable one. There is nothing clear about it at all.
> And no, quite apart from the fact that comparisons between chimpanzees and humans are tenuous at best - there's hundreds of thousands of years of evolution separating us as species - no other primate has ever been discovered to be an owner of capital!
I imagine that fighting for resources, females and habitat don't count then?
In reply to Chambers:
> (In reply to Postmanpat) Ah. Bit of a climbdown from the Postie,
>
No climbdown unless you are hung up on pedantry in which case there isn't any climbdown either since some some societies probably were in a virtually endless state of war.>
> I don't dispute that tribes have entered into conflict over scarce resources, but for every bellicose tribe there is an example of a tribe that lived in harmony on the basis of mutual co-operation.
Evidence? At least some serious anthropological references rather than bald assertions would help.>
> And no, quite apart from the fact that comparisons between chimpanzees and humans are tenuous at best - there's hundreds of thousands of years of evolution separating us as species - no other primate has ever been discovered to be an owner of capital!
> And no, quite apart from the fact that comparisons between chimpanzees and humans are tenuous at best - there's hundreds of thousands of years of evolution separating us as species - no other primate has ever been discovered to be an owner of capital!
In reply to Chambers:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> I don't dispute that tribes have entered into conflict over scarce resources, but for every bellicose tribe there is an example of a tribe that lived in harmony on the basis of mutual co-operation. So the idea that there's something in human nature that is violent and aggressive is clearly a false one.
>
> And lots of capitalist societies live in harmony on the basis of mutual cooperation. Indeed most capitalist liberal democracies do most of the time so the idea that there is something in capitalism that is violent and aggressive is clearly a false one.............
>
> I don't dispute that tribes have entered into conflict over scarce resources, but for every bellicose tribe there is an example of a tribe that lived in harmony on the basis of mutual co-operation. So the idea that there's something in human nature that is violent and aggressive is clearly a false one.
>
> And lots of capitalist societies live in harmony on the basis of mutual cooperation. Indeed most capitalist liberal democracies do most of the time so the idea that there is something in capitalism that is violent and aggressive is clearly a false one.............
In reply to Chambers:
*** or a means to prevent one state from coercing another...
Your assertion that there is an increasing emphasis on de-escalation is a flimsy one.
*** I spent virtually all of my time in the services de-escalating and putting myself literally in the line between 2 sets of people wanting to kill eachother. The other part of my time was in disrupting supply routes and observing what was going on.Untill Afghanistan it was all about this...
> (In reply to KellyKettle) > (In reply to Chambers)
>
> [...]
> You might want to argue that I'm being disingenuous, but I'm afraid you'd need some evidence to support your assertion. I think that you mean that you disagree with my position, rather than that you think I'm being insincere about it...
>
>
> [...]
>
> Agreed. Indeed, many soldiers never even see open warfare and are, rather, involved in the support and maintenance of those who actually do the killing. But that doesn't escape the fact that the armed forces exist, ultimately, as a means by which one state can forcibly coerce another.
>
> [...]
> You might want to argue that I'm being disingenuous, but I'm afraid you'd need some evidence to support your assertion. I think that you mean that you disagree with my position, rather than that you think I'm being insincere about it...
>
>
> [...]
>
> Agreed. Indeed, many soldiers never even see open warfare and are, rather, involved in the support and maintenance of those who actually do the killing. But that doesn't escape the fact that the armed forces exist, ultimately, as a means by which one state can forcibly coerce another.
*** or a means to prevent one state from coercing another...
Your assertion that there is an increasing emphasis on de-escalation is a flimsy one.
*** I spent virtually all of my time in the services de-escalating and putting myself literally in the line between 2 sets of people wanting to kill eachother. The other part of my time was in disrupting supply routes and observing what was going on.Untill Afghanistan it was all about this...
In reply to Rob Exile Ward: No, Harvard couldn't have had me for reasons that may well become clear in the near future. If they had a seat for extrapolation though, you might be a prime contender.
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2003/no-1184-ap...
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2003/no-1184-ap...
In reply to abr1966:
Amounts to the same thing, surely?
Which supports precisely the point I was making. Too early to describe a brief series of tendencies as a trend, no?
> *** or a means to prevent one state from coercing another...
Amounts to the same thing, surely?
> *** I spent virtually all of my time in the services de-escalating and putting myself literally in the line between 2 sets of people wanting to kill eachother. The other part of my time was in disrupting supply routes and observing what was going on.Untill Afghanistan it was all about this...
Which supports precisely the point I was making. Too early to describe a brief series of tendencies as a trend, no?
In reply to Postmanpat:
The evidence is all around us. Far fewer people get involved in fighting, either in gangs or singly than those who do.
The idea that wars are part of human nature is mere ideology used as means a to justify them by leaders who don't end up fighting them. If it was really natural then you'd expect them to be leading the charge.
> I don't dispute that tribes have entered into conflict over scarce resources, but for every bellicose tribe there is an example of a tribe that lived in harmony on the basis of mutual co-operation.
> Evidence? At least some serious anthropological references rather than bald assertions would help.
The evidence is all around us. Far fewer people get involved in fighting, either in gangs or singly than those who do.
The idea that wars are part of human nature is mere ideology used as means a to justify them by leaders who don't end up fighting them. If it was really natural then you'd expect them to be leading the charge.
In reply to stp:
In places where law and order breaks down, you see a marked rise in violence.
Why? Our society is constructed along different lines to tribes. In a tribe. Part of the point of our style of government is to have people in charge who make considered decisions rather than impulsive ones.
I would be bloody worried if I was fighting in an army and those in charge we up front getting shot.
Because if they are dead, who the hell is going to monitor the battle plan and implement changes to it!!!
Sheesh.
I manage people for a living. I have no issue with getting involved and helping out if I have the time......... but past a certain point I have to definitely NOT do that because I'd not be effective at what I'm paid to do, which is facilitate and organise.
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> The evidence is all around us. Far fewer people get involved in fighting, either in gangs or singly than those who do.
>
The problem with this is that it's wrong.>
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> The evidence is all around us. Far fewer people get involved in fighting, either in gangs or singly than those who do.
>
In places where law and order breaks down, you see a marked rise in violence.
> The idea that wars are part of human nature is mere ideology used as means a to justify them by leaders who don't end up fighting them. If it was really natural then you'd expect them to be leading the charge.
Why? Our society is constructed along different lines to tribes. In a tribe. Part of the point of our style of government is to have people in charge who make considered decisions rather than impulsive ones.
I would be bloody worried if I was fighting in an army and those in charge we up front getting shot.
Because if they are dead, who the hell is going to monitor the battle plan and implement changes to it!!!
Sheesh.
I manage people for a living. I have no issue with getting involved and helping out if I have the time......... but past a certain point I have to definitely NOT do that because I'd not be effective at what I'm paid to do, which is facilitate and organise.
In reply to Chambers: He wasn't hired to kill...
His job was to liberate Kuwait..
The anti-americanism is silly, but even worse is this corrupted view of histroy that Saddam was just an annoyance to the west.. he was an evil dictator. I didn't agree with his death penalty, but certainly saw his removal from power as a hugely positive thing for Iraq.
His job was to liberate Kuwait..
The anti-americanism is silly, but even worse is this corrupted view of histroy that Saddam was just an annoyance to the west.. he was an evil dictator. I didn't agree with his death penalty, but certainly saw his removal from power as a hugely positive thing for Iraq.
In reply to IainRUK:
I'd have thought an academic like yourself would have had a bit more of a pragmatic outlook, and not have seen it in such a basic view;
'he was an evil dictator'.
Sounds like a line out of Austin Powers.
I'd have thought an academic like yourself would have had a bit more of a pragmatic outlook, and not have seen it in such a basic view;
'he was an evil dictator'.
Sounds like a line out of Austin Powers.
In reply to johnj: I think that is pragmatic.. balance it out then?
I've not read anything to balance out the torture, mutilation, executions, rape, use of chemical weapons..
Please enlighten me..
I've not read anything to balance out the torture, mutilation, executions, rape, use of chemical weapons..
Please enlighten me..
In reply to johnj: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=saddam+hussein+crimes&ie=utf-8&oe...
Have a read of the PDF linked from the foreign office... I struggle to feel the need to take a pragmatic view..
Have a read of the PDF linked from the foreign office... I struggle to feel the need to take a pragmatic view..
In reply to IainRUK:
Yes Iain, I've read a lot on the subject, shit I even went to North Iraq on OP Haven bulldozing bombed out spaces for the locals to set up new homes. Lots of wrong doing by lots of people.
Yes Iain, I've read a lot on the subject, shit I even went to North Iraq on OP Haven bulldozing bombed out spaces for the locals to set up new homes. Lots of wrong doing by lots of people.
In reply to johnj: Saddam Hussein’s Regime’s Methods of Torture
The following methods of torture have all been reported to international human rights groups, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, by the victims of torture or their families.
Eye gouging
Amnesty International reported the case of a Kurdish businessman in Baghdad who was executed in 1997. When his family retrieved his body, the eyes had been gouged out and the empty eye sockets stuffed with paper.
Piercing of hands with electric drill
A common method of torture for political detainees. Amnesty International reported one victim who then had acid poured into his open wounds.
Suspension from the ceiling
Victims are blindfolded, stripped and suspended for hours by their wrists, often with their hands tied behind their backs. This causes dislocation of shoulders and tearing of muscles and ligaments.
Electric shock
A common torture method. Shocks are applied to various parts of the body, including the genitals, ears, tongue and fingers.
Sexual abuse
Victims, particularly women, have been raped and sexually abused, including reports of broken bottles being forced into the victim’s anus.
"Falaqa"
Victims are forced to lie face down and are then beaten on the soles of their feet with a cable, often losing consciousness.
Other physical torture
Extinguishing cigarettes on various parts of the body, extraction of fingernails and toenails and beatings with canes, whips, hose pipes and metal rods are common.
Mock executions
Victims are told that they are to be executed by firing squad and a mock execution is staged. Victims are hooded and brought before a firing squad, who then fire blank rounds.
Acid baths
David Scheffer, US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes, reported that photographic evidence showed that Iraq had used acid baths during the invasion of Kuwait. Victims were hung by their wrists and gradually lowered into the acid.
Use of the word evil seems appropriate..
The following methods of torture have all been reported to international human rights groups, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, by the victims of torture or their families.
Eye gouging
Amnesty International reported the case of a Kurdish businessman in Baghdad who was executed in 1997. When his family retrieved his body, the eyes had been gouged out and the empty eye sockets stuffed with paper.
Piercing of hands with electric drill
A common method of torture for political detainees. Amnesty International reported one victim who then had acid poured into his open wounds.
Suspension from the ceiling
Victims are blindfolded, stripped and suspended for hours by their wrists, often with their hands tied behind their backs. This causes dislocation of shoulders and tearing of muscles and ligaments.
Electric shock
A common torture method. Shocks are applied to various parts of the body, including the genitals, ears, tongue and fingers.
Sexual abuse
Victims, particularly women, have been raped and sexually abused, including reports of broken bottles being forced into the victim’s anus.
"Falaqa"
Victims are forced to lie face down and are then beaten on the soles of their feet with a cable, often losing consciousness.
Other physical torture
Extinguishing cigarettes on various parts of the body, extraction of fingernails and toenails and beatings with canes, whips, hose pipes and metal rods are common.
Mock executions
Victims are told that they are to be executed by firing squad and a mock execution is staged. Victims are hooded and brought before a firing squad, who then fire blank rounds.
Acid baths
David Scheffer, US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes, reported that photographic evidence showed that Iraq had used acid baths during the invasion of Kuwait. Victims were hung by their wrists and gradually lowered into the acid.
Use of the word evil seems appropriate..
In reply to johnj: So hes a dictator.. and hes evil.. hence my description..
In reply to IainRUK:
We can't really discuss this in anything more than very simplistic soundbites in this form of communication, I've lost count of the amount of links I've posted on this forum which people wont even bother to read as the mindset they hold is already set in stone.
We can't really discuss this in anything more than very simplistic soundbites in this form of communication, I've lost count of the amount of links I've posted on this forum which people wont even bother to read as the mindset they hold is already set in stone.
In reply to stp:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> The evidence is all around us. Far fewer people get involved in fighting, either in gangs or singly than those who do.
>
>
So you think that capitalism reduces the propensity for violence?>
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> The evidence is all around us. Far fewer people get involved in fighting, either in gangs or singly than those who do.
>
>
In reply to IainRUK:
So dude is bad yeah, so us the good folk blow the shit out of the place just to get rid of one bad dude, and who replaced him Mother F*cking Mary? err no I didn't think so. We've got to stop killing people as justification for killing people, get it yet?
So dude is bad yeah, so us the good folk blow the shit out of the place just to get rid of one bad dude, and who replaced him Mother F*cking Mary? err no I didn't think so. We've got to stop killing people as justification for killing people, get it yet?
In reply to johnj:
Economic sanctions didn't work. So what, we just watch and leave them to it? Seems even more barbaric than killing a few to save many, to me.
> (In reply to IainRUK)
>
> So dude is bad yeah, so us the good folk blow the shit out of the place just to get rid of one bad dude, and who replaced him Mother F*cking Mary? err no I didn't think so. We've got to stop killing people as justification for killing people, get it yet?
>
> So dude is bad yeah, so us the good folk blow the shit out of the place just to get rid of one bad dude, and who replaced him Mother F*cking Mary? err no I didn't think so. We've got to stop killing people as justification for killing people, get it yet?
Economic sanctions didn't work. So what, we just watch and leave them to it? Seems even more barbaric than killing a few to save many, to me.
In reply to johnj:
1. I opposed his death penalty.
2. We should have continued in 91.
3. No sometimes we have to intervene. Kosovo was a prime example, ethnic cleansing within the borders of Europe.
Sometimes interventions are justified. So no, I don't get it.
1. I opposed his death penalty.
2. We should have continued in 91.
3. No sometimes we have to intervene. Kosovo was a prime example, ethnic cleansing within the borders of Europe.
Sometimes interventions are justified. So no, I don't get it.
In reply to johnj: That's fine. You can have a different view. I just don't feel the need to insult or belittle you for having that view.
In reply to IainRUK:
We were involved with intervention, don't you remember? Then Dr David Kelly at the most important place in his career after 20 odd years of working in dangerous areas, when he had something really important to say, just went and topped him self, funny old world.
We were involved with intervention, don't you remember? Then Dr David Kelly at the most important place in his career after 20 odd years of working in dangerous areas, when he had something really important to say, just went and topped him self, funny old world.
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
If you're going use such a simplistic tool as body count, Well I'm sure if you did some research on it you'd find the numbers killed in the conflict and aftermath far outweighs the number killed by the regime pre conflict.
If you're going use such a simplistic tool as body count, Well I'm sure if you did some research on it you'd find the numbers killed in the conflict and aftermath far outweighs the number killed by the regime pre conflict.
In reply to johnj:
From Wiki
According to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants — friends on friends, circles within circles — making an entire population complicit in his rule".[9] Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war.[10] Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000[11] to over 600,000,[12] estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000,[13] and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000[14] to 200,000.[12] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.[15]
I'm sure there's more sources.
And no, it isn't as simple as a body count. It's about quality of life too. It's taken a while and I'm sure it will take a while longer, but living in fear for your life if you exercise basic freedoms of speech is definitely another yardstick I'd use.
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> If you're going use such a simplistic tool as body count, Well I'm sure if you did some research on it you'd find the numbers killed in the conflict and aftermath far outweighs the number killed by the regime pre conflict.
>
> If you're going use such a simplistic tool as body count, Well I'm sure if you did some research on it you'd find the numbers killed in the conflict and aftermath far outweighs the number killed by the regime pre conflict.
From Wiki
According to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants — friends on friends, circles within circles — making an entire population complicit in his rule".[9] Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war.[10] Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000[11] to over 600,000,[12] estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000,[13] and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000[14] to 200,000.[12] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.[15]
I'm sure there's more sources.
And no, it isn't as simple as a body count. It's about quality of life too. It's taken a while and I'm sure it will take a while longer, but living in fear for your life if you exercise basic freedoms of speech is definitely another yardstick I'd use.
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
Lots of sources out there. interesting you pick the New York times, as a well rounded viewpoint, they wouldn't bite the hand that feeds them now would they?
No you're right living in fear is not good, however killing people to try and solve that problem is not the answer.
Lots of sources out there. interesting you pick the New York times, as a well rounded viewpoint, they wouldn't bite the hand that feeds them now would they?
No you're right living in fear is not good, however killing people to try and solve that problem is not the answer.
In reply to johnj:
So what DO you do? As I said, economic sanctions didn't work. Nor would they in that kind of regime.
I am no warmonger. But I am far less comfortable with not getting involved.
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> Lots of sources out there. interesting you pick the New York times, as a well rounded viewpoint, they wouldn't bite the hand that feeds them now would they?
>
The selction was random. However, the deaths in the Iran invasion are not disputed by anyone....... the rest, even if you accepted a quarter of those deaths it's still more than leaving and watching. >
> Lots of sources out there. interesting you pick the New York times, as a well rounded viewpoint, they wouldn't bite the hand that feeds them now would they?
>
> No you're right living in fear is not good, however killing people to try and solve that problem is not the answer.
So what DO you do? As I said, economic sanctions didn't work. Nor would they in that kind of regime.
I am no warmonger. But I am far less comfortable with not getting involved.
In reply to johnj: So what is the answer?
And the New York Times is a fairly central US paper, probably one of the best US papers..
And the New York Times is a fairly central US paper, probably one of the best US papers..
In reply to IainRUK:
I don't think there are easy answers, as it would have to be a complete change and the drums of war won't stop banging for a long long time that's for sure. For me its all about increasing the peace, lead by example and all that stuff, I mean I remember the basic lessons at school were the bigger man will always walk away, yeah you have to defend your home and family, same with some of them Taliban, proper devoted men of honor, they'll defend their lands till 3030 and no doubt beyond. There has to be another way.
I don't think there are easy answers, as it would have to be a complete change and the drums of war won't stop banging for a long long time that's for sure. For me its all about increasing the peace, lead by example and all that stuff, I mean I remember the basic lessons at school were the bigger man will always walk away, yeah you have to defend your home and family, same with some of them Taliban, proper devoted men of honor, they'll defend their lands till 3030 and no doubt beyond. There has to be another way.
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
A good start would be using all the hi-tech manufacturing base that currently builds and sells weapons systems switching focus to space exploration.
A good start would be using all the hi-tech manufacturing base that currently builds and sells weapons systems switching focus to space exploration.
In reply to johnj:
Well I am 100% geek. You find a way to make that happen and I'll sign up!!!
I'm also 100% realist though. So I'm afraid I don't see it as likely.
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> A good start would be using all the hi-tech manufacturing base that currently builds and sells weapons systems switching focus to space exploration.
>
> A good start would be using all the hi-tech manufacturing base that currently builds and sells weapons systems switching focus to space exploration.
Well I am 100% geek. You find a way to make that happen and I'll sign up!!!
I'm also 100% realist though. So I'm afraid I don't see it as likely.
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
Well then possibly you've two ways of looking at it then,
1, we decide to call it a draw, start sharing technology as the human race here on earth is just one big family.
or
2, Us the free west, keep the threat of nuking the rouge states, for long enough till some insider gets proper pissed with it all, ships out a bit of proliferated heavy f*cking shit, and a big f*cking dirty bomb goes off, cue world war 4.
Well then possibly you've two ways of looking at it then,
1, we decide to call it a draw, start sharing technology as the human race here on earth is just one big family.
or
2, Us the free west, keep the threat of nuking the rouge states, for long enough till some insider gets proper pissed with it all, ships out a bit of proliferated heavy f*cking shit, and a big f*cking dirty bomb goes off, cue world war 4.
In reply to johnj:
Most other technology IS pretty freely available, all except the real cutting edge.
I doubt a dirty bomb would set off WW4 (did I fall asleep through WW3??)
I think I like the old phrase, speak sofly, carry an effin' big stick.
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> Well then possibly you've two ways of looking at it then,
>
> 1, we decide to call it a draw, start sharing technology as the human race here on earth is just one big family.
>
I can't agree. While there is a possibility that we may have to send troops into unstable regions....... I can't see that giving them technology which can be used for warfare is a good idea.>
> Well then possibly you've two ways of looking at it then,
>
> 1, we decide to call it a draw, start sharing technology as the human race here on earth is just one big family.
>
Most other technology IS pretty freely available, all except the real cutting edge.
> or
>
> 2, Us the free west, keep the threat of nuking the rouge states, for long enough till some insider gets proper pissed with it all, ships out a bit of proliferated heavy f*cking shit, and a big f*cking dirty bomb goes off, cue world war 4.
>
> 2, Us the free west, keep the threat of nuking the rouge states, for long enough till some insider gets proper pissed with it all, ships out a bit of proliferated heavy f*cking shit, and a big f*cking dirty bomb goes off, cue world war 4.
I doubt a dirty bomb would set off WW4 (did I fall asleep through WW3??)
I think I like the old phrase, speak sofly, carry an effin' big stick.
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
Maybe you did fall asleep, some make take the origins of the war back further. But I'd say WW3 Kicked off on 11/09/01. Obviously wars are fought differently than before, as at the start of the great war, they still were using Calvary charges, old school....
Well I've said my lot on here, like many others Storming Norman was a true warrior, Rest In Peace Big man xXx
Maybe you did fall asleep, some make take the origins of the war back further. But I'd say WW3 Kicked off on 11/09/01. Obviously wars are fought differently than before, as at the start of the great war, they still were using Calvary charges, old school....
Well I've said my lot on here, like many others Storming Norman was a true warrior, Rest In Peace Big man xXx
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...