Medic Refused Rifle Training

[MilitantDogOwner]

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.

 

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

 

Without an Armed Forces to ensure our sovernty (sp?) we would be the mercy of any foreign power who would want to take over. The fundementalist Islamist, who would want to rule through Shria law, would put a stop to your free speech. And your right to vote, your right to representation, etc, etc.

 

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

 

This does not make any sense.

[pauld]

So you are seriously proposing that without the armed forces to defend britain, that muslims would invade the brits, and here.

 

You must reached right upto into the top your arse for that one.

 

And thats not even taking into consideration that the muslims that hate brits do so only because of their armed forces.

 

All britain needs is to make a serious contribution of men and equipement to the UN, and its own border force, britain does not require the ability to wage war, it retains the ability to wage war on its own, to pillage, simple as that.

[MilitantDogOwner]

So you are seriously proposing that without the armed forces to defend britain, that muslims would invade the brits, and here.

 

You must reached right upto into the top your arse for that one.

 

And thats not even taking into consideration that the muslims that hate brits do so only because of their armed forces.

 

All britain needs is to make a serious contribution of men and equipement to the UN, and its own border force, britain does not require the ability to wage war, it retains the ability to wage war on its own, to pillage, simple as that.

 

No I gave that as one example of a group thats interests are against that of the UK.

 

"And thats not even taking into consideration that the muslims that hate brits do so only because of their armed forces." Oh that circular arguement. Terror groups hate the UK because of its Forces involvement in the wars in the Middle East. The UK is at war in Muslim countries because of attacks against the UK and its allies. The attacks are because the UK and its Allies.....and so on and so on. As long as terror attacks take place on UK soil and on the UKs Allies, the UK will fight those who would attack them.

 

Can you give an example of when the UK Armed Forces was used to wage war on its own, to pillage?

[pauld]

Can you give an example of when the UK Armed Forces was used to wage war on its own, to pillage?

 

I didnt say they had pillaged on their own recently, Iraq & Falklands cover both pillage and waging war on their own.

 

the rest of your verbiage is simple as this, did the muslims set foot in britain first or did the brits set foot on muslim ground first, in the answer you have your seeds of hate.

[MilitantDogOwner]

Can you give an example of when the UK Armed Forces was used to wage war on its own, to pillage?

 

I didnt say they had pillaged on their own recently, Iraq & Falklands cover both pillage and waging war on their own.

 

the rest of your verbiage is simple as this, did the muslims set foot in britain first or did the brits set foot on muslim ground first, in the answer you have your seeds of hate.

 

"I didnt say they had pillaged on their own recently, Iraq & Falklands cover both pillage and waging war on their own."

 

What are you dribbling on about? The Falklands? You really need to get someone who can type in legible english to type for you.

 

"the rest of your verbiage is simple as this, did the muslims set foot in britain first or did the brits set foot on muslim ground first, in the answer you have your seeds of hate."

 

Okay, (sigh) if you want to get down to it....The British (or more to the point the Church) first invaded the Muslims land during the Crusades.

 

The problem is that the war that the terrorist factions is against the Empire. The Empire is gone. Finished. No more. Yes the British Empire was a bad idea. And the people of today are being made to pay for the mistakes of the past. As long as terrorist attacks take place on UK soil, the British Government (and by extension the Armed Forces) will continue to fight those terrorists. Where-ever they choose to hide.

[pauld]

"Wherever THEY hide" in their resource rich countries

 

In other words you invade other countries or aid other countries to invade rather, and share the spoils {offensive, making war}.

Are trying to tell me britain was aided by other countries when they went to war in the falklands then.

[MilitantDogOwner]

"Wherever THEY hide" in their resource rich countries

 

In other words you invade other countries or aid other countries to invade rather, and share the spoils {offensive, making war}.

Are trying to tell me britain was aided by other countries when they went to war in the falklands then.

 

Who do you think lent the British Army Stinger Missile systems during the Falklands, when the Rapier Missile batteries failed to protect the Navy.

 

I'll give you a hint, it wasn't the French (who had supplied the Exocets to the Argies).

[MilitantDogOwner]

The simple fact is he joined up expecting to get away with out having to deploy, and when his turn came around he turned yellow and "CO'd" out.

 

Coward.

[pauld]

I havent said any different,my reply was to PK on a point of order, you decided to pick up his baton and run with it.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

 

 

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

It depends on how much they know and where they have their information from.

 

Does the average civillian know the effect range and strike capability of a cruise missile or the methods of delivery?

No. Would the average person in Armed Forces? No.

 

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?

Yes, if we were talking about morality.

 

And no, the average member of the public would not know what it was like to patrol the streets of N.I. at the time. But would the same soldier necessarily understand the politics involved in the British Army's role? Nothing to say that they simply would because they were there. Whereas you might have civilians who spent time trying to understand such things, things that aren't part of the job of the soldier.

 

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.

You might think so for the reasons mentioned. Would it necessarily come to be that a servicemen would know these reasons, simply from being in the forces? Not necessarily. Would they be able to talk about the role of such carriers and how they fit into Britain's current strategic policies? Not unless they read about it.

 

Really? You need to ask that question?

Yes, there are goods arguments why Britain shouldn't be in afghanistan at all. Would the servicemen know better from being in Afghanistan? No reason why they would. They are not gifted with some inside knowledge on the political reasons for going to war against them. They are just there fighting them.

 

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.

They would no doubt have a good idea of what happened on the ground that they did. But would the same veterans be able to discuss the tactics used 50 miles away at the time? Or know the degree of threat from invasion of Britain at different points during the war?

[manxy]

I just see the whole affair as being rather sad as no-one wins in the end.

IMO, he shouldn't have joined up in the first place IF HE KNEW that he might be called upon to use a weapon anywhere in the world, whether it be for safety to himself or his casualties.

 

Locking him up however, seems like a complete waste of resources to me and as he's medically trained, I'd have liked to see him moved to where he could be of better use, like a hospital.

I know......, he's labelled as being disobedient, undermines the chain of command, etc, etc, but by placing him in detention just doesn't sit right with me and I'd have liked to see him released as he's no use to the military side of things and it just costs 'Joe Public' for keeping him here

[La_Dolce_Vita]

 

"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.

If you have missed the point of what I am talking about, being in the Armed Forces only provides first hand knowledge of what EXACTLY was done and when it was done. The soldier on Northern Ireland would be an authority when it comes to talking about work on streets at that time. But they might know jack about Afghanistan. The WW2 vet might have been looking enough to live through Arnhem and be able to talk about that, but they might know fuck all about british naval strategy during that time.

And someone in Afghanistan might know a great deal about the tactics employed in fighting the taliban and the people, but know bugger all about the nitty gritty of the politics behind their involvement.

 

And then you are making the mistake of thinking that every post you are reading comes from people who just read a snippet in the daily rag.

 

Given that you seem to think that you are an authority on the armed forces, I'd have thought you'd be refuting every disagreeable with ease, rather than stating that we don't know what we're talking about.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

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.

That is a little simplistic and maybe naive. You refer to Britain using its forces defensively, but Britain did get involved for defending its interests and economic position in Europe by going to war over Poland.

 

MilitaryDogOwner -

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

Are you sure that's the right choice of words? Would you not prefer, economic and strategic?

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

Such as?

 

Without an Armed Forces to ensure our sovernty (sp?) we would be the mercy of any foreign power who would want to take over. The fundementalist Islamist, who would want to rule through Shria law, would put a stop to your free speech. And your right to vote, your right to representation, etc, etc.

What makes you think that the foreign power would prevent free speech?

And British Armed Forces aren't protecting Britain from fundamentalist Islamists. Where did you get this idea from? And although Al Qaeda might just FURTHER curb how much freedom people have with their speech, but sharia law doesn't itself call for limited speech.

 

Oh that circular arguement. Terror groups hate the UK because of its Forces involvement in the wars in the Middle East. The UK is at war in Muslim countries because of attacks against the UK and its allies. The attacks are because the UK and its Allies.....and so on and so on. As long as terror attacks take place on UK soil and on the UKs Allies, the UK will fight those who would attack them.

Although Pauld would be incorrect in thinking that attacks on the US and UK and elsewhere are primarily the result of armed forces in the middle east, it would also be incorrect to think that the UK is there to stop terrorism. That wouldn't make, as even the best strategists know that such a policy is flawed. And the Taliban were no threat, it was simply to bolster Britain economic and political influence that the UK got involved.

[spook]

I would very much like to see the return of compulsory service in one of the armed forces by the return of conscription.

 

We need to redress the libertine selfish morality that has destroyed so much that was good and decent in society, we need to get youths into a program to enrich their lives and those of p[eople they will interact with during the rest of their lives. In short to restore pride in themselves, their country, and respect for other people.

 

To educate those who will benefit being educated in things that they would otherwise not learn such as self sacrifice, consideration for other people, and good behaviour, and train those who are incapable of being educated or unwilling to be educated that if they do not behave responsibly then there is a price that they will pay.

 

I know there will be the usual outburst of “troll” which so often accompanies anyone expressing a controversial opinion, but I'm no troll. What's more I'm deadly serious about there being a crying need for the return of a period of national service by and for young people as part of their education, training, and conditioning in order to enter what would soon become a very much better and cleaner society.

 

Maybe having completed national service or having been excused for a legitimate cause such as physical disability should be the basis for being allowed to vote.

[Terse]

And don't forget that we need to start sending children up chimneys to clean them again. Knob.