Medic Refused Rifle Training

[Lonan3]

It does appear that ex-military types tend to defend the armed forces in the same way that members of it defend the freemasons - or Rog used to defend anything and everything that Israel did. That, at least, is the impression I get of some posters.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I don't know what you are asking about specifically. Say it was for example from reading academic material and reading the economist. What would say then?

[MilitantDogOwner]

I don't know what you are asking about specifically. Say it was for example from reading academic material and reading the economist. What would say then?

 

But have you directly been involved in that area of interest, rather than reading about others knowledge and experience?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

What area of interest? I told you it was a silly question. The socio-economics of South Asia is a pretty big subject. What aspect were you referring to? I might not know anything about that aspect.

 

 

Maybe you should form a better analogy, although I think I know what poor point you are trying to demonstrate. You could just stick the military and make your point there.

 

Ok, what about the economic situation in Laos. Do you think a Laotian peasant would have a good understanding of the economic situation of their nation?

What about the average Turkish muslim citizen, would they know about the history of Islam than a Chinese professor on the subject?

 

I made my point before. And that someone in the Forces is not the authority on all matters concerning it and is not necessarily more knowledgeable than a civilian on every matter.

[MilitantDogOwner]

What area of interest? I told you it was a silly question. The socio-economics of South Asia is a pretty big subject. What aspect were you referring to? I might not know anything about that aspect.

 

 

Maybe you should form a better analogy, although I think I know what poor point you are trying to demonstrate. You could just stick the military and make your point there.

 

Ok, what about the economic situation in Laos. Do you think a Laotian peasant would have a good understanding of the economic situation of their nation?

What about the average Turkish muslim citizen, would they know about the history of Islam than a Chinese professor on the subject?

 

I made my point before. And that someone in the Forces is not the authority on all matters concerning it and is not necessarily more knowledgeable than a civilian on every matter.

 

My point is that your knowledge is second hand, you have no first hand experience or have never actually been involved in any shape or fashion with the area of topic you are discussing.

 

You are an outsider whos only knowledge is that gained from other peoples understanding, and your own theories/opinions or what you can gather from the media.

 

I do not claim to know every aspect of the Armed Forces. But what I do know is gained from first hand expereince and involvement in the subject area.

[pauld]

I know my oldman made friends in the 9 years of his army days that he stayed in touch with for the rest of his life.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

My point is that your knowledge is second hand, you have no first hand experience or have never actually been involved in any shape or fashion with the area of topic you are discussing.

As compared with what?

 

Take the example of a soldier sent to Afghanistan. Would they have more knowledge on cruise missiles than a civilian? Would they simply know more about whether the use of troops in Northern Ireland was moral? Or whether Britain should build aircraft carriers? Or whether the Taliban deserve to be eliminated?

Or would the WW2 veteran have a better understanding of the reasons why Germany went to war than an academic now?

 

I know that they would have particular knowledge that non-participants won't have, but you seem to think involvement simply makes them knowledgeabe on (presumably) all matters.

 

I do not claim to know every aspect of the Armed Forces. But what I do know is gained from first hand expereince and involvement in the subject area.

Experience of what though exactly (and when)? What exactly have you been involved in?

 

If we were going to talk about how the British Armed Forces are used today, say in Afghanistan or in peacekeeping, are you telling me that SIMPLY because you served in the Forces you think that gives you more knowledge and understanding than a civilian?

[P.K.]

It does appear that ex-military types tend to defend the armed forces in the same way that members of it defend the freemasons - or Rog used to defend anything and everything that Israel did. That, at least, is the impression I get of some posters.

 

Well, the military are there for defence after all! Unlike the freemasons who are there for personal advantage...

 

I suspect the issue is that military life is so completely and utterly different from just about any other walk of life you care to mention. So those who have never experienced it can only make completely stupid uneducated guesses speculate on issues like motivation, to take the case in point.

 

I personally don't for one minute believe any of the "moral and ethical grounds" guff he's putting about. To me they called his bluff so now he's trying to work his ticket in case a Taliban sniper takes it upon himself to provide matey boy with a 7.63 mm second arsehole.

 

Case closed.

[MilitantDogOwner]

It does appear that ex-military types tend to defend the armed forces in the same way that members of it defend the freemasons - or Rog used to defend anything and everything that Israel did. That, at least, is the impression I get of some posters.

 

Well, the military are there for defence after all! Unlike the freemasons who are there for personal advantage...

 

I suspect the issue is that military life is so completely and utterly different from just about any other walk of life you care to mention. So those who have never experienced it can only make completely stupid uneducated guesses speculate on issues like motivation, to take the case in point.

 

I personally don't for one minute believe any of the "moral and ethical grounds" guff he's putting about. To me they called his bluff so now he's trying to work his ticket in case a Taliban sniper takes it upon himself to provide matey boy with a 7.63 mm second arsehole.

 

Case closed.

 

Indeed. NO need for airy fairy bollocks. He tried his hand and lost. Sooner he is removed from the Forces the better. No place for cowardice.

[MilitantDogOwner]

My point is that your knowledge is second hand, you have no first hand experience or have never actually been involved in any shape or fashion with the area of topic you are discussing.

As compared with what?

 

Take the example of a soldier sent to Afghanistan. Would they have more knowledge on cruise missiles than a civilian? Would they simply know more about whether the use of troops in Northern Ireland was moral? Or whether Britain should build aircraft carriers? Or whether the Taliban deserve to be eliminated?

Or would the WW2 veteran have a better understanding of the reasons why Germany went to war than an academic now?

 

I know that they would have particular knowledge that non-participants won't have, but you seem to think involvement simply makes them knowledgeabe on (presumably) all matters.

 

I do not claim to know every aspect of the Armed Forces. But what I do know is gained from first hand expereince and involvement in the subject area.

Experience of what though exactly (and when)? What exactly have you been involved in?

 

If we were going to talk about how the British Armed Forces are used today, say in Afghanistan or in peacekeeping, are you telling me that SIMPLY because you served in the Forces you think that gives you more knowledge and understanding than a civilian?

 

Depends on whether the civillian is a specialist in those fields or joe bloggs off the street.

 

"Would they have more knowledge on cruise missiles than a civilian?" Does the average civillian know the effect range and strike capability of a cruise missile or the methods of delivery?

 

"they simply know more about whether the use of troops in Northern Ireland was moral?" Does morals come into it? The deployment of troops was in response to the situation on the ground. I.E. the situation was of a higher threat level than the police could handle. Did joe bloggs on the street know what was happening on the street better then the soldier on the ground?

 

"Or whether Britain should build aircraft carriers?" Yes it should. Aircraft carriers are excellent mobile operations centres that have world wide reach and are capable of deploying strike capable assets all over the world, as well as providing mobile command and control assets for peace keeping/aid missions. Air power is a massive force multiplier in modern warfare and the ability to deploy that airpower anywhere in the world is a massive gain for a force that has it.

 

"Or whether the Taliban deserve to be eliminated?" Really? You need to ask that question?

 

"Or would the WW2 veteran have a better understanding of the reasons why Germany went to war than an academic now?" Those heroes did not need to know why the Germans did what they did. The Germans had to be stopped and they did the job. They would have a better understand of what actually happened out on the ground than any acedemic would today through research.

 

"are you telling me that SIMPLY because you served in the Forces you think that gives you more knowledge and understanding than a civilian?" Again are we talking about someone who has studied Afghanistan, its conflicts, its people, been on the ground and spoken to the people? Or are we talking about Joe Bloggs who learns everything he needs to know about Afghanistan from the news?

 

I would listen to the first guy, Joe Bloggs however (which I'm guessing you're closer too than the other guy) is just talking opinion and speculation.

[pauld]

It does appear that ex-military types tend to defend the armed forces in the same way that members of it defend the freemasons - or Rog used to defend anything and everything that Israel did. That, at least, is the impression I get of some posters.

 

Well, the military are there for defence after all! Unlike the freemasons who are there for personal advantage...

 

I suspect the issue is that military life is so completely and utterly different from just about any other walk of life you care to mention. So those who have never experienced it can only make completely stupid uneducated guesses speculate on issues like motivation, to take the case in point.

 

I personally don't for one minute believe any of the "moral and ethical grounds" guff he's putting about. To me they called his bluff so now he's trying to work his ticket in case a Taliban sniper takes it upon himself to provide matey boy with a 7.63 mm second arsehole.

 

Case closed.

Righto, when was the last time they were called upon to do that then, even in 1939 they were defending poland and not britain, britain declared war on germany, so when was the last time the armed forces were used for defence, instead of offensively, well over 100years.

 

defending against Napoleon was the last time i will bet.

[MilitantDogOwner]

It does appear that ex-military types tend to defend the armed forces in the same way that members of it defend the freemasons - or Rog used to defend anything and everything that Israel did. That, at least, is the impression I get of some posters.

 

Well, the military are there for defence after all! Unlike the freemasons who are there for personal advantage...

 

I suspect the issue is that military life is so completely and utterly different from just about any other walk of life you care to mention. So those who have never experienced it can only make completely stupid uneducated guesses speculate on issues like motivation, to take the case in point.

 

I personally don't for one minute believe any of the "moral and ethical grounds" guff he's putting about. To me they called his bluff so now he's trying to work his ticket in case a Taliban sniper takes it upon himself to provide matey boy with a 7.63 mm second arsehole.

 

Case closed.

Righto, when was the last time they were called upon to do that then, even in 1939 they were defending poland and not britain, britain declared war on germany, so when was the last time the armed forces were used for defence, instead of offensively, well over 100years.

 

defending against Napoleon was the last time i will bet.

 

By defending the UKs interests, be they industrial or political, foreign or domestic, the Armed Forces are defending the UK.

 

Every day operations take place to hinder or stop all together threats to the UK and its allies.

 

Just because the boogey man isn't at the gates, doesn't mean he isn't trying to get in.

[pauld]

Bollocks, by defending british interests you actually mean acting like gangsters henchmen.

[MilitantDogOwner]

Bollocks, by defending british interests you actually mean acting like gangsters henchmen.

 

Well you still have your freedom to call it bollocks. You're welcome.

[pauld]

How does that work then, you think i would not have freedom of speech without the british armed forces ensuring it.

 

Who would be running the island then, and banning free speech, if not for the brits armed forces ensuring that right in your opinion.