Poll: DELETED_74993

[Firestar_3x]

How's it not? They gave the order to advance across no-mans land, knowing damn well that they would be slaughtered? And pip pip, they did it for King and country.

So when the British mindlessly walk into the guns of the enemy, it's a stiff upper lip and for old blighty. But when the Arabs do it, it's "suicidal" and a "horrible country".

What it is, is bull**** snobbery, elitism and racism.

Because that was the way to do things back in the day, it was before the advance of modern war tactics developed by the Germans in and before WWII, we had nothing to protect our troops, it was either do that or lose the war.

 

[Brian8bit]

Because that was the way to do things back in the day, it was before the advance of modern war tastics developed by the germans in and before WWII, we had nothing to protect our troops, it was either do that or lose the war.

And like I already pointed out, the Iranians had neither the firepower or tactics to defeat the Iraqis. It was either do that or... oh wait.

 

[Firestar_3x]

From BBC..



As much as I feel uneasy about the whole situation, at the end of the day we did vote for these people to represent us and make decisions in matters that despite the use of wikipedia, we don't fully understand ourselves. We cannot therefore moan when they do exactly that - it appears almost unanimous?

Being an armchair general on the internet and saying categorically we should do X or we shouldn't do why whilst making assumptions about reasoning is all very well but in reality none of us really know what we are talking about - we just like to think we do.

Exactly, our viewpoint is somewhat moot anyways, we don't have all the facts about what's going on behind closed doors.

 

[Pinkribbonscars]

I get your point, but I do not think the level of sacrifice is the same, and it still puts Iran about 60 years behind us. We haven't stoned our women to death for a while either.

 

[Brian8bit]

I get your point, but I do not think the level of sacrifice is the same, and it still puts Iran about 60 years behind us. We haven't stoned our women to death for a while either.

You don't think the level of sacrifice is the same? How many died at the Somme? And how many died after the Somme, knowing full well every time an 18 year old officer who only got the position because he was upper class, blew his whistle they where going forward as yet another wave of cannon fodder?

Your proclamation that the Iranians are a horrible country for doing something that the British did on a grander scale is ****ing nonsense.

 

[Johno please?]

How's it not? They gave the order to advance across no-mans land, knowing damn well that they would be slaughtered? And pip pip, they did it for King and country.

So when the British mindlessly walk into the guns of the enemy, it's a stiff upper lip and for old blighty. But when the Arabs do it, it's "suicidal" and a "horrible country".

What it is, is bull**** snobbery, elitism and racism.

The only BS here is your fatuous comment.

Being an armchair general on the internet and saying categorically we should do X or we shouldn't do why whilst making assumptions about reasoning is all very well but in reality none of us really know what we are talking about - we just like to think we do. We are not in command of all the facts, are we? And its probably inappropriate that we ever should be.

True.

 

[Danthus]

Exactly, our viewpoint is somewhat moot anyways, we don't have all the facts about what's going on behind closed doors.

A fair point but it isn't as though MP's and the public haven't bed told a lie before in order to go to war.

 

[Firestar_3x]

You don't think the level of sacrifice is the same? How many died at the Somme? And how many died after the Somme, knowing full well every time an 18 year old officer who only got the position because he was upper class, blew his whistle they where going forward as yet another wave of cannon fodder?

Your proclamation that the Iranians are a horrible country for doing something that the British did on a grander scale is ****ing nonsense.

So what should we have done then?

 

[Pinkribbonscars]

And like I already pointed out, the Iranians had neither the firepower or tactics to defeat the Iraqis. It was either do that or... oh wait.

There have been a huge number of wars since WWI where one side was weaker than the other - usually the weaker side chooses innovative tactics, the Iranians decided to immitate a 70 year old tactic using indoctrinated children.

 

[Brian8bit]

So what should we have done then?

That's not the point and you know it. The point was his remark about the Iranians being a horrible country for doing something we did on an even larger scale, is bull****.

 

[Pinkribbonscars]

You don't think the level of sacrifice is the same? How many died at the Somme? And how many died after the Somme, knowing full well every time an 18 year old officer who only got the position because he was upper class, blew his whistle they where going forward as yet another wave of cannon fodder?

Your proclamation that the Iranians are a horrible country for doing something that the British did on a grander scale is ****ing nonsense.

I'm well aware of the numbers, but WWI was a much bigger war, and we faced a completely new type of warfare and had to make do with what we had.

Edit: More to the point, we used this type of warfare in 1916, not 1980, the world changed massively in that time.

 

[dannyjo22]

3) We have a allocated yearly conflict budget.

I'd rather we didn't spend it and used it to pay off some debt.

I can see why so many countries hate us, I'm starting to hate our foreign policy and the way we stick our nose into everyone elses business only when it suits. In a way I'm starting to hope someone bloodies that nose.

 

[Biohazard]

From BBC..



As much as I feel uneasy about the whole situation, at the end of the day we did vote for these people to represent us and make decisions in matters that despite the use of wikipedia, we don't fully understand ourselves.

I don't think you can speak for everybody. Those 650 odd are not the only people in the country with an understanding of world affairs by a long shot, and I can guess there are people here with better qualities and understanding than some of their worst that is for sure.

In fact there is nothing to evidence that they are in fact all masters of foreign affairs and current issues at all.

Any idiot can be pushed into office and chamber, it doesn't prove a thing.

We cannot therefore moan when they do exactly that - it appears almost unanimous?

It does, but that does not mean we have to agree with what the Establishment wants or has been positioned into talking.

This has all happened very fast, its happened before parliament has really been given a chance to discuss it which can in effect taint the subject when it comes to fore because if you oppose it now you can look to be a touch non supportive or even anti nationalist.

There is wide support for this but I would much rather we stay away from it and issue statements of disaproval etc.

What does seem to be conveyed is the lack of overall direction and plan, its very much as it happens it would seem and I am not comfortable with this. It's going to be another long mess either way we can't afford the involvement.

"mission creep" was as close as it got, I would have to ask why we have to involve our self at all.

 

[Brian8bit]

I'm well aware of the numbers, but WWI was a much bigger war, and we faced a completely new type of warfare and had to make do with what we had.

Edit: More to the point, we used this type of warfare in 1916, not 1980, the world changed massively in that time.

More to the point, maybe the West changed. Europe did. The Middle East and Arab world did not. Mostly because of the tearing apart of the Ottoman empire the British and Allies did after 1918.

Who knows. If the Turks had rolled through and WW1 had turned out differently with the Ottoman empire on top, maybe indoctrinated children suicidally giving their lives for God and England might have made the UK a horrible country.

 

[Pinkribbonscars]

Maybe, but that didn't happen and Iran is still a barbaric country which stones women to death for having the audacity to be raped.

 

[Biohazard]

Exactly, our viewpoint is somewhat moot anyways, we don't have all the facts about what's going on behind closed doors.

Oh come off it. How often do we need to stand behind National Security when it comes to 'humanitarian' missions?

They haven't shown themself to be entirely truthful before, so I wouldn't trust it in my name again in all honesty.

 

[Danthus]

So how many deaths does it take before we attack Syria?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12814429

The US has condemned Syria's use of "disproportionate force" to suppress demonstrations calling for greater freedom and an end to corruption.

National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor urged Damascus to allow protests to take place peacefully.

Earlier, troops were deployed in the southern city of Deraa as thousands marched for a fourth successive day.

So far at least six people have been killed in clashes with the security forces, including an 11-year-old boy.

Mundhir Masalmi died on Monday after suffering tear gas inhalation a day earlier, an activist told the Associated Press.

Although the demonstrators have not demanded the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, the unrest is the most serious challenge to his rule since he succeeded his father, Hafez, 11 years ago.

 

[Zip]

So how many deaths does it take before we attack Syria?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12814429

You do realize that lybia got attcked by the west when 100s if not 1000s of people had been killed and there was a city of 700,000 that were at risk of genocide?

You can sort of see the difference in those numbers compared to 6 people.
Bit of a troll post you had there me thinks.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

So how many deaths does it take before we attack Syria?

It doesn't matter, as it's not in our national interests to intervene?


The humanatarian issue was the main reason for intervention in Libya but we had other interests - Cam said as much - "In the nations interest".

You're judging world affairs by YOUR standards, not by the way it actually works.

 

[Danthus]

You do realize that lybia got attcked by the west when 100s if not 1000s of people had been killed and there was a city of 700,000 that were at risk of genocide?

You can sort of see the difference in those numbers compared to 6 people.
Bit of a troll post you had there me thinks.

It isn't a troll post at all, it a serious question, how many deaths does it take for us to take action to save lives?

It doesn't matter, as it's not in our national interests to intervene?


The humanatarian issue was the main reason for intervention in Libya but we had other interests - Cam said as much - "In the nations interest".

You're judging world affairs by YOUR standards, not by the way it actually works.

Why are the internal affairs of Libya in our national interest, are you seriously suggesting that humanitarianism should only apply if it suits us?

Surely humanitarianism should not be governed by political interests, that contradicts what humanitarianism is.