Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why dont 'Common sense campaigners' protest against politically correct militarism? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrFroggy)
    Wow you actually found one! Still its of a guy being run over the same thing happens in warehouses.

    Actually the iraqis shared my opinion, hence most of them legged it as soon as they could.

    France could advise us to start a war with germany but if we did we would still be responsible.


    Iraqbodycount:
    The human cost of war must be recorded
    1.1 War is an abomination whose defining characteristic is the organised killing of humans.
    1.2 Our common humanity demands the recording of war deaths.
    1.3 Every individual killed must be identified.
    1.4 We must use every available means to record and preserve knowledge of the dead
    The project was founded in January 2003 by volunteers from the UK and USA who felt a responsibility to ensure that the human consequences of military intervention in Iraq were not neglected

    Hardly right wing stuff. The bomber and comment are their to make people angry at american callousness not there as support.

    The lancet and the other one are estimates, I can estimate 10 million or a 100 the iraq body count only includes documented deaths.

    I wouldn't suggest we support saddam or arm him but whats done is done everyone should focus on whats best for the future.
    I have worked in a warehouse and on the railway the risk is completely different and the pay reflects that. You don't get the sort of machine which crushed that guy in a warehouse. There are very many people killed on the railway. You requested a single example and i supplied and then you use the fact i have a single example as a defence that the railway is not a dangerous job. Which ofcourse is a ridiculous argument.
    Are you udner the impression the only risk on the railway is getting struck by a train? you are so naive.

    Iraqbodycount has had a lot of controversy for the extremely low numbers they have tallied wikipedia them, its all there.

    Britain and America still do what they did with Saddam today. Britain and America do not care about good tthey care about their own interests and making themselves richer.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheJudge)
    Why dont 'Common sense campaigners' protest against politically correct militarism?

    To expand.

    I see very often people who consider themselves common sense campaigners campaigning against political correctness. They claim it is ridiculous that we should have winterval instead of christmas (The idea of winterval was not designed to replace christmas but seized upon anyway).
    Many of the notions they campaign against appear to target ethnic minorities and quite honestly appear to be veiled racism.

    My intrigue to whether this is really a movement against political correctness or a form of veiled racism has led me to question why these people do not campaign against the increasing militarism in the UK.

    Today it is politically correct to call soldiers heros, to claim the war in Afghanistan is for a good cause, to revel in military parades, to chastise protesters who are legitiamtely protesting returning soldiers. Help for Heroes is a very politically correct cause to support.

    It appears many people would complain some political correctness is allowing the destruction of British culture and that supporting the military does not damage British culture thus military support is not offensive. However it appears to me this new militaristic fervor has been imported from the USA and is very Un-British, when i grew up it was normal to be skeptical of the military this however is being replaced by the American culture of hero whorshipping soldiers.

    I cosndier this a very dangerous and backwards culture to be apart of and would like to hear the views of the student room to this phenomenom.
    Your argument contains some very bizarre if not deluded reasoning,

    You seem, in effect, firstly to be calling people who are anti political correct 'racists' - a rather unsubstantiated argument and gross generalization.

    From that you are then asking - bizarrely - why these people are not campaigning against the 'new militarism' as you have coined it. Well perhaps firstly you would like to elaborate on what this 'new militarism' actually is... (as you havn't) is it a few military parades for dead soldiers through some English towns that have been in the papers recently? I'm not sure military parades were imported from America, we have them every year to honour the dead. And the reason they have been in the papers is because of the complaints soldiers arent kitted out properly.

    Now why on earth you think English people are going to 'campaign' against their own army baffles me. And I'm not sure what part of England you grew up in, but again the claim that is was 'normal' in your day to be skeptical of the army is beyond me?


    And yes, most ordinary people want the 'legitimate protesters' 'chastised', or even better out of the country, because they are disgusted by them.

    Your whole post to me seems nothing more then a bitter and resentful diatribe against this country.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheJudge)
    This is all out war. What in your mind is an all out war if this is not.
    Rules of engagement, having to win hearts and minds etc, it all means you can’t just stroll through the villages in your challenger two.

    During the Bush war in Rhodesia there were no rules, they were simply told to keep the insurgents out of the villages which they did with great ferocity and success despite the insurgents having the home advantage.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    Rules of engagement, having to win hearts and minds etc, it all means you can’t just stroll through the villages in your challenger two.

    During the Bush war in Rhodesia there were no rules, they were simply told to keep the insurgents out of the villages which they did with great ferocity and success despite the insurgents having the home advantage.

    Ok, lets just say Britain decided to ignore the rules of engagement... they go to Afghanistan drop a nuke, absolutely slaughter villages etc

    The reaction of the world would do more damage than any roadside bomb. So no Britain cannot conduct some concept of all out war because they would lose anyway.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 10, 2009
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.