Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Bottling Moonbeams
Topic Started: Nov 23 2015, 05:39 PM (763 Views)
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
“Why do have to be able to have planes, transport aircraft, aircraft carriers and everything else to get anywhere in the world? Why?”

“Wouldn’t it be wonderful if every politician around the world, instead of taking pride in the size of their armed forces, did what the people of Costa Rica have done and abolished the army and took pride in the fact that they don’t have an army, and that their country is near the top of the global peace index. Surely that is the way we should be going forward.”


Guess whose words these are? Has he not yet recognised that outside of his Dream World Bubble it is a very dangerous place. I am sure that the ISIL Monsters will respond to his words and lay down their arms and allow the Courts to deal with their self confessed misdemeanours.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

He was speaking in 2013 and he had a point. Had a slow day or something?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Nov 23 2015, 06:05 PM
He was speaking in 2013 and he had a point. Had a slow day or something?
What point? This is no peaceful paradise, never was and he words, the words from a Politician not a Priest, just shows how removed from reality he is.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

RJD
Nov 23 2015, 06:09 PM
gansao
Nov 23 2015, 06:05 PM
He was speaking in 2013 and he had a point. Had a slow day or something?
What point? This is no peaceful paradise, never was and he words, the words from a Politician not a Priest, just shows how removed from reality he is.



Maybe he was making the point that if we didnt project military force into other peoples countries then they may not be so inclined to project aggression into ours.
Do you have trouble with that concept?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Nov 23 2015, 06:15 PM
RJD
Nov 23 2015, 06:09 PM
gansao
Nov 23 2015, 06:05 PM
He was speaking in 2013 and he had a point. Had a slow day or something?
What point? This is no peaceful paradise, never was and he words, the words from a Politician not a Priest, just shows how removed from reality he is.



Maybe he was making the point that if we didnt project military force into other peoples countries then they may not be so inclined to project aggression into ours.
Do you have trouble with that concept?
Yes peaceful behaviour promotes peace. Nice concept, but with this incompetent government in power there is no chance whatsoever of that happening.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Nov 23 2015, 06:05 PM
He was speaking in 2013 and he had a point. Had a slow day or something?
I'd have checked the comparative crime rates before praising Costa Rica or his exaltation of it

Peaceful? :nono:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Steve K
Nov 23 2015, 07:08 PM
gansao
Nov 23 2015, 06:05 PM
He was speaking in 2013 and he had a point. Had a slow day or something?
I'd have checked the comparative crime rates before praising Costa Rica or his exaltation of it

Peaceful? :nono:


34 out of 162.


CENTRAL AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN
Peace in Central America and the Caribbean remains
challenging, but the region managed to improve slightly
compared with its 2014 scores. It remains less peaceful than the
global average, however. Costa Rica, Jamaica and Honduras
were the strongest gainers. In Costa Rica’s case, this was mostly
because of improvement in the scores for homicide rate and for
relations with neighbouring countries


http://www.visionofhumanity.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Peace%20Index%20Report%202015_0.pdf
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Costa Rica murder rate 8 times that of UK
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Steve K
Nov 23 2015, 07:43 PM


Maybe but from what point do we start? Did the homicide rate and the disbanding of the army occur at the same time?
Was the homicide rate always high? What is the external and internal factors that influence the murder rate?


Also even if the Costa Ricans are killing each other wholesale Corbyn's point is still valid. He would have just chosen a poor example
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Nov 23 2015, 07:50 PM
Steve K
Nov 23 2015, 07:43 PM


Maybe but from what point do we start? Did the homicide rate and the disbanding of the army occur at the same time?
Was the homicide rate always high? What is the external and internal factors that influence the murder rate?


Also even if the Costa Ricans are killing each other wholesale Corbyn's point is still valid. He would have just chosen a poor example
Well they disbanded in 1949 and the UN stats only go back to 2000

Surely the whole point of the OP is that Corbyn has had a habit of choosing poor examples
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Steve K
Nov 23 2015, 08:12 PM
gansao
Nov 23 2015, 07:50 PM
Steve K
Nov 23 2015, 07:43 PM


Maybe but from what point do we start? Did the homicide rate and the disbanding of the army occur at the same time?
Was the homicide rate always high? What is the external and internal factors that influence the murder rate?


Also even if the Costa Ricans are killing each other wholesale Corbyn's point is still valid. He would have just chosen a poor example
Well they disbanded in 1949 and the UN stats only go back to 2000

Surely the whole point of the OP is that Corbyn has had a habit of choosing poor examples


TBH I dont think it was. IMO the OP was a dig at his concept that we should not have the means to project military force into distant lands.

You highlighted his poor choice ( which is a valid point) although I doubt that there is another example.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Yes you're right.

Not sure what Corbyn can do about his past goofs. If he doesn't recant them asap they will keep coming back to haunt him
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Steve K
Nov 23 2015, 08:22 PM
Yes you're right.

Not sure what Corbyn can do about his past goofs. If he doesn't recant them asap they will keep coming back to haunt him


This may be time to squeeze in my mantra...Corbyn is not as important as the Corbyn narrative.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Boxter
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
So some South American politician decided to save cash by disbanding an army noone ever heard of. The conservative government were almost going in that direction with the most savage cuts in our military capability ever perpetrated by any government of this country. ISIL have changed their tune big style but they are simply robbing other dept's budgets to find the extra cash.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Nov 23 2015, 08:31 PM
Steve K
Nov 23 2015, 08:22 PM
Yes you're right.

Not sure what Corbyn can do about his past goofs. If he doesn't recant them asap they will keep coming back to haunt him


This may be time to squeeze in my mantra...Corbyn is not as important as the Corbyn narrative.
Corbyn's example stands.

Just what the fuck does a military have to do with crime; the police deal with crime.

Moreover: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Costa_Rica

Costa Rica maintains small forces capable of law enforcement and foreign peacekeeping, but has no permanent standing army.


Ministry of Public Security's Public Force (1996) Edit
In 1996, the Ministry of Public Security established the Fuerza Pública or Public Force which reorganized and eliminated the Civil Guard, Rural Assistance Guard, and Frontier Guards as separate entities. They are now under the Ministry and operate on a geographic command basis performing ground security, law enforcement, counter-narcotics, border patrol and tourism security functions.

Outside the Fuerza Pública, there is a small Special Forces Unit, the Unidad Especial de Intervencion (UEI) or Special Intervention Unit, an elite commando force which trains with special forces from around the world, but is not part of the main police forces. Instead it is part of the Intelligence and Security Directorate (DIS) which reports directly to the Minister of the Presidency. About 70 members strong, it is organized along military lines, although officially a civilian police unit.

Its motto is "God, Fatherland and Honor". Commissioner of Police Juan José Andrade Morales serves as its current Commissioner General.
Edited by skwirked, Nov 25 2015, 12:11 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
It would be nice to have a grown up nonpartisan debate about the real purpose/ benefit of armed forces. It seems lately that their main purpose is screwing up other countries, bombing them or solving humanitarian disasters (perhaps we should just rename them international rescue in respect of the last point.)
I think there should be a standing army for defence.
Right now our main threat is terrorism. Strangely we aren’t prepared to use the army against terrorists for fear of soldiers getting killed. That, whilst understandable, kind of defies the object of having them in the first place.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionater
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 23 2015, 08:22 PM
Yes you're right.

Not sure what Corbyn can do about his past goofs. If he doesn't recant them asap they will keep coming back to haunt him
He would and probably will stand by them but consider modifications required to accommodate his leadership. In other words he still believes them bit will consider the view of his MP's to form policy that may conflict with his personal views and opinions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Alberich
Member Avatar
Alberich
[ *  *  * ]
What a great idea! Way to go, Costa Rica!!! Now all we have to do is devise a method of ensuring that every other nation on the face of the earth does likewise!

Sorted.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Alberich
Nov 25 2015, 02:51 PM
What a great idea! Way to go, Costa Rica!!! Now all we have to do is devise a method of ensuring that every other nation on the face of the earth does likewise!

Sorted.


Same argument as the gun nuts in the US use to refute the gun control argument. So you are in good company.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Alberich
Member Avatar
Alberich
[ *  *  * ]
It is nothing like the "same argument", as you would understand had you managed to grasp the salient points I was making. Go on, give it a try.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
I take it that we could agree that not every country is intent upon invading every other country. Most genuine democracies tend to try and avoid conflict and face genuine resistance from their populace when attempting to do so.
Threats do not occur in a vacuum and the intelligence service can assess risk. Therefore it would make sense to balance the size of ones armed forces with both what you can afford and the level of risk.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Alberich
Nov 25 2015, 03:14 PM
It is nothing like the "same argument", as you would understand had you managed to grasp the salient points I was making. Go on, give it a try.


Yes it is.They say the way to stop gun violence is to have more guns.
Thats basically what you are saying except you are approaching the same argument from the opposite side.
'We need more guns ( military resources) because there is too much gun violence ( others military resources)..kind of 'logic'

I managed to grasped the salient points that seems to have eluded you....
Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Nov 23 2015, 06:15 PM
RJD
Nov 23 2015, 06:09 PM
gansao
Nov 23 2015, 06:05 PM
He was speaking in 2013 and he had a point. Had a slow day or something?
What point? This is no peaceful paradise, never was and he words, the words from a Politician not a Priest, just shows how removed from reality he is.



Maybe he was making the point that if we didnt project military force into other peoples countries then they may not be so inclined to project aggression into ours.
Do you have trouble with that concept?
I understand the concept and admit I was bamboozled by Blair into agreeing with his desire to attack Iraq. With the benefit of hindsight I believe that strategy was a mistake. I am also not happy about the UK undertaking anything other than necessary surgical actions at this time in Syria, but I recognise that sometimes force is necessary and killing people will be the result. With respect to ISIL I do not expect them all to have their day in a Court set up to deal with war crimes, I do not expect them to listen to the overtures of Christian Priests or western Politicians, I expect them to continue to kill indiscriminately and support any sensible action that removes their ability to breath in air. I also know that these people wish to do us harm here in the UK and it is very unlikely that those committed to that cause are unlikely to be persuaded not to and it is the responsibility of the State, if necessary, to kill them before they kill any of us. But I doubt a life long pacifist would support such a view. Seems to me that some hold the lives of such Terrorists, nay vile murderers, to be of greater value than UK citizens or even innocent women and children in zones for combat, but I have a different set of scales.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

RJD
Nov 25 2015, 05:56 PM
gansao
Nov 23 2015, 06:15 PM
RJD
Nov 23 2015, 06:09 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep


Maybe he was making the point that if we didnt project military force into other peoples countries then they may not be so inclined to project aggression into ours.
Do you have trouble with that concept?
I understand the concept and admit I was bamboozled by Blair into agreeing with his desire to attack Iraq. With the benefit of hindsight I believe that strategy was a mistake. I am also not happy about the UK undertaking anything other than necessary surgical actions at this time in Syria, but I recognise that sometimes force is necessary and killing people will be the result. With respect to ISIL I do not expect them all to have their day in a Court set up to deal with war crimes, I do not expect them to listen to the overtures of Christian Priests or western Politicians, I expect them to continue to kill indiscriminately and support any sensible action that removes their ability to breath in air. I also know that these people wish to do us harm here in the UK and it is very unlikely that those committed to that cause are unlikely to be persuaded not to and it is the responsibility of the State, if necessary, to kill them before they kill any of us. But I doubt a life long pacifist would support such a view. Seems to me that some hold the lives of such Terrorists, nay vile murderers, to be of greater value than UK citizens or even innocent women and children in zones for combat, but I have a different set of scales.


I understand what you are saying but Corbyn did not say that we should arrest all of ISIS and give them a day in court.
He did not say that terrorist lives are worth more than innocent lives either.
He made the point that it would be better if we aimed to reduce armed forces and asked why we needed the ability to project military force anywhere in the world.
The West has been party to the killing of hundreds and thousands ( if not millions) of muslims in the ME and elsewhere.
So far we are LESS safe from Islamic terrorists than we were 20 years ago.
Where does that leave your musings?
Also the question of Osama bin Laden..do you honestly think that it was better to assassinate him and chuck him in the sea than to bring him to trial?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Nov 25 2015, 06:06 PM
RJD
Nov 25 2015, 05:56 PM
gansao
Nov 23 2015, 06:15 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I understand the concept and admit I was bamboozled by Blair into agreeing with his desire to attack Iraq. With the benefit of hindsight I believe that strategy was a mistake. I am also not happy about the UK undertaking anything other than necessary surgical actions at this time in Syria, but I recognise that sometimes force is necessary and killing people will be the result. With respect to ISIL I do not expect them all to have their day in a Court set up to deal with war crimes, I do not expect them to listen to the overtures of Christian Priests or western Politicians, I expect them to continue to kill indiscriminately and support any sensible action that removes their ability to breath in air. I also know that these people wish to do us harm here in the UK and it is very unlikely that those committed to that cause are unlikely to be persuaded not to and it is the responsibility of the State, if necessary, to kill them before they kill any of us. But I doubt a life long pacifist would support such a view. Seems to me that some hold the lives of such Terrorists, nay vile murderers, to be of greater value than UK citizens or even innocent women and children in zones for combat, but I have a different set of scales.


I understand what you are saying but Corbyn did not say that we should arrest all of ISIS and give them a day in court.
He did not say that terrorist lives are worth more than innocent lives either.
He made the point that it would be better if we aimed to reduce armed forces and asked why we needed the ability to project military force anywhere in the world.
The West has been party to the killing of hundreds and thousands ( if not millions) of muslims in the ME and elsewhere.
So far we are LESS safe from Islamic terrorists than we were 20 years ago.
Where does that leave your musings?
Also the question of Osama bin Laden..do you honestly think that it was better to assassinate him and chuck him in the sea than to bring him to trial?
Unfortunately the World is a dangerous place and requires Policing and it is down to countries such as the UK to contribute to such. Force is just one adjunct of Foreign Policy and without such we leave ourselves exposed. The fact that Corbyn cannot see the reality of the situation is very disturbing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Nov 25 2015, 06:06 PM
RJD
Nov 25 2015, 05:56 PM
gansao
Nov 23 2015, 06:15 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I understand the concept and admit I was bamboozled by Blair into agreeing with his desire to attack Iraq. With the benefit of hindsight I believe that strategy was a mistake. I am also not happy about the UK undertaking anything other than necessary surgical actions at this time in Syria, but I recognise that sometimes force is necessary and killing people will be the result. With respect to ISIL I do not expect them all to have their day in a Court set up to deal with war crimes, I do not expect them to listen to the overtures of Christian Priests or western Politicians, I expect them to continue to kill indiscriminately and support any sensible action that removes their ability to breath in air. I also know that these people wish to do us harm here in the UK and it is very unlikely that those committed to that cause are unlikely to be persuaded not to and it is the responsibility of the State, if necessary, to kill them before they kill any of us. But I doubt a life long pacifist would support such a view. Seems to me that some hold the lives of such Terrorists, nay vile murderers, to be of greater value than UK citizens or even innocent women and children in zones for combat, but I have a different set of scales.


I understand what you are saying but Corbyn did not say that we should arrest all of ISIS and give them a day in court.
He did not say that terrorist lives are worth more than innocent lives either.
He made the point that it would be better if we aimed to reduce armed forces and asked why we needed the ability to project military force anywhere in the world.
The West has been party to the killing of hundreds and thousands ( if not millions) of muslims in the ME and elsewhere.
So far we are LESS safe from Islamic terrorists than we were 20 years ago.
Where does that leave your musings?
Also the question of Osama bin Laden..do you honestly think that it was better to assassinate him and chuck him in the sea than to bring him to trial?
And let us not forget that we are committed to spending 2% of GDP on the defence budget, the same goes for all NATO members.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

RJD
Nov 25 2015, 06:09 PM
gansao
Nov 25 2015, 06:06 PM
RJD
Nov 25 2015, 05:56 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep


I understand what you are saying but Corbyn did not say that we should arrest all of ISIS and give them a day in court.
He did not say that terrorist lives are worth more than innocent lives either.
He made the point that it would be better if we aimed to reduce armed forces and asked why we needed the ability to project military force anywhere in the world.
The West has been party to the killing of hundreds and thousands ( if not millions) of muslims in the ME and elsewhere.
So far we are LESS safe from Islamic terrorists than we were 20 years ago.
Where does that leave your musings?
Also the question of Osama bin Laden..do you honestly think that it was better to assassinate him and chuck him in the sea than to bring him to trial?
Unfortunately the World is a dangerous place and requires Policing and it is down to countries such as the UK to contribute to such. Force is just one adjunct of Foreign Policy and without such we leave ourselves exposed. The fact that Corbyn cannot see the reality of the situation is very disturbing.


You miss the point. Corbyn did not say that the world was a safe place.On the contrary he claimed it was a dangerous place. He also questioned why we should make it more dangerous and mooted on the principle to reduce military resources.
He did not assert that we should disband the military.
Please dont tell us that the West is' policing' the world.That would make you far more deluded than you claim Corbyn to be.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Rich
Nov 25 2015, 06:35 PM
gansao
Nov 25 2015, 06:06 PM
RJD
Nov 25 2015, 05:56 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep


I understand what you are saying but Corbyn did not say that we should arrest all of ISIS and give them a day in court.
He did not say that terrorist lives are worth more than innocent lives either.
He made the point that it would be better if we aimed to reduce armed forces and asked why we needed the ability to project military force anywhere in the world.
The West has been party to the killing of hundreds and thousands ( if not millions) of muslims in the ME and elsewhere.
So far we are LESS safe from Islamic terrorists than we were 20 years ago.
Where does that leave your musings?
Also the question of Osama bin Laden..do you honestly think that it was better to assassinate him and chuck him in the sea than to bring him to trial?
And let us not forget that we are committed to spending 2% of GDP on the defence budget, the same goes for all NATO members.


If I could find anything in your post that relates to anything in mine then I would attempt to post an answer.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 23 2015, 05:39 PM
Quote:
 
“Why do have to be able to have planes, transport aircraft, aircraft carriers and everything else to get anywhere in the world? Why?”

“Wouldn’t it be wonderful if every politician around the world, instead of taking pride in the size of their armed forces, did what the people of Costa Rica have done and abolished the army and took pride in the fact that they don’t have an army, and that their country is near the top of the global peace index. Surely that is the way we should be going forward.”


Guess whose words these are? Has he not yet recognised that outside of his Dream World Bubble it is a very dangerous place. I am sure that the ISIL Monsters will respond to his words and lay down their arms and allow the Courts to deal with their self confessed misdemeanours.
Hmmm... there IS some truth in it though.

How effective have our military been at stopping ISIS attacks in the UK ?

The Police, perhaps... but the military ?
ISIS don't seem to bother about aircraft carriers or nuclear submarines. We havn't deployed any troop transports (ariel or maritime), or indeed troops. Our planes are a somewhat token force. Have they really made any difference ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Nov 25 2015, 06:41 PM
RJD
Nov 25 2015, 06:09 PM
gansao
Nov 25 2015, 06:06 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Unfortunately the World is a dangerous place and requires Policing and it is down to countries such as the UK to contribute to such. Force is just one adjunct of Foreign Policy and without such we leave ourselves exposed. The fact that Corbyn cannot see the reality of the situation is very disturbing.


You miss the point. Corbyn did not say that the world was a safe place.On the contrary he claimed it was a dangerous place. He also questioned why we should make it more dangerous and mooted on the principle to reduce military resources.
He did not assert that we should disband the military.
Please dont tell us that the West is' policing' the world.That would make you far more deluded than you claim Corbyn to be.
It is a presumption that giving up on self defence will make adversaries do likewise. I do not buy that guff. I believe that the carrot should always be accompanied with a stick when negotiating with those we believe intend to do us harm and the absence of such a stick increases our danger. Therefore I believe it vital that Politicians take the defence of this realm seriously and not take us on such a fool hardy adventure. I am no pacifist, I believe I am a realist who bases his opinion on history and not day dreams.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Nov 25 2015, 09:58 PM
RJD
Nov 23 2015, 05:39 PM
Quote:
 
“Why do have to be able to have planes, transport aircraft, aircraft carriers and everything else to get anywhere in the world? Why?”

“Wouldn’t it be wonderful if every politician around the world, instead of taking pride in the size of their armed forces, did what the people of Costa Rica have done and abolished the army and took pride in the fact that they don’t have an army, and that their country is near the top of the global peace index. Surely that is the way we should be going forward.”


Guess whose words these are? Has he not yet recognised that outside of his Dream World Bubble it is a very dangerous place. I am sure that the ISIL Monsters will respond to his words and lay down their arms and allow the Courts to deal with their self confessed misdemeanours.
Hmmm... there IS some truth in it though.

How effective have our military been at stopping ISIS attacks in the UK ?

The Police, perhaps... but the military ?
ISIS don't seem to bother about aircraft carriers or nuclear submarines. We havn't deployed any troop transports (ariel or maritime), or indeed troops. Our planes are a somewhat token force. Have they really made any difference ?
Token forces only have a token effect.
Nobody claimed that our military forces should be used to hunt down UK based ISIL terrorists in our communities. That is just another Strawman. But if it came to such a requirement I would be very please3d that we have such people trained, armed and willing to kill such Monsters.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
The problem is encapsulated in the term “Policing the world” because the phrase is a perversion due to collateral damage, which is another euphemism for killing civilians. But of course this does not matter because they are not British and they are a very long way away.
All this moral outrage at French people who were going around just getting on with their lives being killed whilst understandable has to be seen to also be perverse when there doesn’t seem to be the same level of concern about innocent muslim civilians being killed going about their day to day business.
In short our solution, whilst minimising the losses of our military personnel, is simply perpetuating the issue. This is pretty obvious.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH: The problem is encapsulated in the term “Policing the world” because the phrase is a perversion due to collateral damage, which is another euphemism for killing civilians. But of course this does not matter because they are not British and they are a very long way away.


I see not such perversion as Policing often results in such damage. Innocents are hurt due to unforeseen and therefore unplanned circumstances.


ACH: All this moral outrage at French people who were going around just getting on with their lives being killed whilst understandable has to be seen to also be perverse when there doesn’t seem to be the same level of concern about innocent muslim civilians being killed going about their day to day business.


Not perverse but the very nature of mankind. I am surprised that you think they would react differently.

ACH: In short our solution, whilst minimising the losses of our military personnel, is simply perpetuating the issue. This is pretty obvious.

Not obvious too me. I believe if we put away our arms and claimed we would show our cheeks then these Monsters would be encouraged to kill more of us. They wish to spill our blood and they justify this on the basis of revenge for recent crimes and among these are our relative economic success, the temerity to put our feet on what they think is their lands and seek to influence those who have control of the Gov. of such places. Pacifism will, I believe, make a bad situation worse.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]


RJD: I see no such perversion as Policing often results in such damage. Innocents are hurt due to unforeseen and therefore unplanned circumstances.

ACH: Hardly on the same scale though. How many people in the UK are killed in police operations? How many civilians were killed in IRAQ whilst we were policing the world? How many civilians in Syria and Iraq are being killed by our surgical strikes? We are not policing the world we are murdering people who we deem to be threats and any civilians that have the misfortune of being in the same place. I am not necessarily saying we shouldn’t do I am saying we should have the decency to recognise it for what it is.

RJD: Not perverse but the very nature of mankind. I am surprised that you think they would react differently.

ACH: I am not surprised that people behave this way but the hypocrisy is unavoidable and should be noted especially if we aspire to a media and press that is fair and balanced rather than just a propaganda machine (I do not think it is a propaganda machine.)

RJD: Not obvious too me. I believe if we put away our arms and claimed we would show our cheeks then these Monsters would be encouraged to kill more of us.

ACH I am not suggesting we do this.

RJD: They wish to spill our blood and they justify this on the basis of revenge for recent crimes and among these are our relative economic success, the temerity to put our feet on what they think is their lands and seek to influence those who have control of the Gov. of such places.

ACH: I do not believe that this is any justification. I do not believe that the collateral damage we cause is justification either but it does give them fodder for their recruitment process. We (our government) claim to care about human rights but really mean they care about our human rights.

RJD: Pacifism will, I believe, make a bad situation worse.

ACH Yes pacifism will not deter psychopathic murderers but revenge serves only to illustrate that the proclaimed righteousness of our position is a nonsense. As I said, what I think is obvious but you do not, is the case is that we accept the loss of Syrian/Iraqi civilians because it is more acceptable to me majority of our populace than would be soldiers in body bags. Pragmatic but hardly righteous.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Gansao.
The West has been party to the killing of hundreds and thousands ( if not millions) of muslims in the ME and elsewhere.
It is of course ridiculous to imply that the "West has been party to the killing of hundreds and thousands (if not millions) of muslims in the ME and elsewhere".
The West is not party to either Islamic sectarianism or to Islamist extremism. And no one, absolutely no one forces Muslims to kill Muslims regardless of what the West does or does not do. The Sunni / Shia conflict (Iraq invasion of Iran) saw the death of over a million Muslims. The trend to put so much blame or to infer so much blame on the West, distorts the true picture and detracts from the real problem.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Nov 26 2015, 04:05 PM
Quote:
 
Gansao.
The West has been party to the killing of hundreds and thousands ( if not millions) of muslims in the ME and elsewhere.
It is of course ridiculous to imply that the "West has been party to the killing of hundreds and thousands (if not millions) of muslims in the ME and elsewhere".
The West is not party to either Islamic sectarianism or to Islamist extremism. And no one, absolutely no one forces Muslims to kill Muslims regardless of what the West does or does not do. The Sunni / Shia conflict (Iraq invasion of Iran) saw the death of over a million Muslims. The trend to put so much blame or to infer so much blame on the West, distorts the true picture and detracts from the real problem.
Whilst I am not suggesting that this in any way justifies the acts of islamic state isn't the current figure for civilian iraqi deaths during the invasion at something like 100,000 +.

Found this:

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2011/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD:
Quote:
 
I see no such perversion as Policing often results in such damage. Innocents are hurt due to unforeseen and therefore unplanned circumstances.


ACH:
Quote:
 
Hardly on the same scale though. How many people in the UK are killed in police operations? How many civilians were killed in IRAQ whilst we were policing the world? How many civilians in Syria and Iraq are being killed by our surgical strikes? We are not policing the world we are murdering people who we deem to be threats and any civilians that have the misfortune of being in the same place. I am not necessarily saying we shouldn’t do I am saying we should have the decency to recognise it for what it is.


What has scale got to do with it? You claimed perversion, I pointed out why not.
As to such strikes in regions of civilian population I am agin it.
I stated I regret my support for Blair and Bush in Iraq.


RJD:
Quote:
 
Not perverse but the very nature of mankind. I am surprised that you think they would react differently
.

ACH:
Quote:
 
I am not surprised that people behave this way but the hypocrisy is unavoidable and should be noted especially if we aspire to a media and press that is fair and balanced rather than just a propaganda machine (I do not think it is a propaganda machine.)


OK

RJD:
Quote:
 
Not obvious too me. I believe if we put away our arms and claimed we would show our cheeks then these Monsters would be encouraged to kill more of us.

ACH
Quote:
 
I am not suggesting we do this.


I thought you were defending the Corbychev position. If not then what do you propose?

RJD:
Quote:
 
They wish to spill our blood and they justify this on the basis of revenge for recent crimes and among these are our relative economic success, the temerity to put our feet on what they think is their lands and seek to influence those who have control of the Gov. of such places.


ACH:
Quote:
 
I do not believe that this is any justification. I do not believe that the collateral damage we cause is justification either but it does give them fodder for their recruitment process. We (our government) claim to care about human rights but really mean they care about our human rights.


But we are not going to, I hope, put western boots on the ground to kill ISIL thugs.

RJD:
Quote:
 
Pacifism will, I believe, make a bad situation worse.


ACH
Quote:
 
Yes pacifism will not deter psychopathic murderers but revenge serves only to illustrate that the proclaimed righteousness of our position is a nonsense. As I said, what I think is obvious but you do not, is the case is that we accept the loss of Syrian/Iraqi civilians because it is more acceptable to me majority of our populace than would be soldiers in body bags. Pragmatic but hardly righteous.


Not sure that Cameron's position is inspired by revenge. Yep it is true Joe Public will prefer to see dead Arabs in preference to dead Brits, I do not expect anything else.

Let us be clear; I do not wish to see the RAF bomb anything else but ISIL convoys of terrorists or munitions or oil that they are selling. I do not wish to see western boots on the ground with arms killing Muslims. But I do wish to see Muslims clearing out that nest of Vipers that carry the ISIL banner and would not lose one wink of sleep if they killed every man Jack of them and their cohorts, camp followers etc. To achieve such, even though it sticks in one's craw we should get behind Putin and give Russia the lead role here and assist Assad in exterminating this evil scum. Yes in so doing those evil buggers in our midst will get agitated, but that will help us ID them and hopefully kill or bang them up for a very long time. All that said we will also have to read the Riot Act to Turkey and get them to toe the line.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Nov 26 2015, 04:20 PM
C-too
Nov 26 2015, 04:05 PM
Quote:
 
Gansao.
The West has been party to the killing of hundreds and thousands ( if not millions) of muslims in the ME and elsewhere.
It is of course ridiculous to imply that the "West has been party to the killing of hundreds and thousands (if not millions) of muslims in the ME and elsewhere".
The West is not party to either Islamic sectarianism or to Islamist extremism. And no one, absolutely no one forces Muslims to kill Muslims regardless of what the West does or does not do. The Sunni / Shia conflict (Iraq invasion of Iran) saw the death of over a million Muslims. The trend to put so much blame or to infer so much blame on the West, distorts the true picture and detracts from the real problem.
Whilst I am not suggesting that this in any way justifies the acts of islamic state isn't the current figure for civilian iraqi deaths during the invasion at something like 100,000 +.

Found this:

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2011/
You will note that Muslim on Muslim deaths far outnumber deaths by coalition forces. Most of the deaths from coalition forces after the invasion were down to fighting those in opposition to the setting up of a democracy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image

Yep after the initial slaughter we did reduce the kill rate. The above is kills by US led coalition.


Posted Image

Yep the anti_gov lot continued to prolong the slaughter. The above is kills by anti_gov lot.

Posted Image

The total amount of slaughter. That is a lot of deaths and a humungous amount of treasure just to rid the country of a despotic regime. Was it worth it? I think not.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 26 2015, 10:04 AM
gansao
Nov 25 2015, 06:41 PM
RJD
Nov 25 2015, 06:09 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep


You miss the point. Corbyn did not say that the world was a safe place.On the contrary he claimed it was a dangerous place. He also questioned why we should make it more dangerous and mooted on the principle to reduce military resources.
He did not assert that we should disband the military.
Please dont tell us that the West is' policing' the world.That would make you far more deluded than you claim Corbyn to be.
It is a presumption that giving up on self defence will make adversaries do likewise. I do not buy that guff. I believe that the carrot should always be accompanied with a stick when negotiating with those we believe intend to do us harm and the absence of such a stick increases our danger. Therefore I believe it vital that Politicians take the defence of this realm seriously and not take us on such a fool hardy adventure. I am no pacifist, I believe I am a realist who bases his opinion on history and not day dreams.

Yes RJD, Teddy Roosevelt said as much too, although I did not realise that it was an old African proverb.

http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/troosevelt/section9.rhtml
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply