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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dn013)
    I didn't say anything of the kind, I was merely pointing out the fact that in most of the past wars Britain has fought, Britain's enemy has been the one suppressing human rights.

    I was also pointing out your naivety in thinking that the British army only goes anywhere to kill people. Any occupying force is far more successful when it works with civilians - and the British army has realized this. The British army is engaged in numerous community service ventures - such as building schools and setting up medicine - in order to win over hearts and minds.

    The very fact that you avoid the obvious facts that Iraq is now a democracy, when under Saddam the civilian population was subjected to a vicious totalitarian dicatator (I am not saying that I am in favor of the war I am just stating the obvious) shows your failures.

    You can say that the British army are 'murderers' but you do not have any evidence to suggest that the British army has targeted innocent civilians - and that is because it has not.
    Failures? No, in an argument based on human rights I am hardly going to deny that Saddam Hussain was a vicious totalitarian dictator. And Iraq is in civil war so lets not pretend the heroes have made there country and lives perfect.

    Win over hearts and minds? Yeah so they get less hassle when occupying, and can get on with killing people without the locals doing their bit to make it difficult for them.

    You don't understand the meaning of 'murder'. If you are a solider, and you kill another soldier you have murdered a person (see, doesn't have to be a civilian, just a y'know, a human being. Please do not try to say that murder is ok when you wear the queens uniform and spout patriotic ********. I mean, if a man abuses his wife is it ok to kill him?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    'Most' people don't. It's just they don't care about a pointless, expensive and endless war which is being fought by fools too stupid to question the war but just want to go and play guns in the desert and come home to a worshiping population - not going to happen. I don't owe them anything, the constant terrorist threat isn't being solved.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by isitjustme...)
    Failures? No, in an argument based on human rights I am hardly going to deny that Saddam Hussain was a vicious totalitarian dictator. And Iraq is in civil war so lets not pretend the heroes have made there country and lives perfect.

    Win over hearts and minds? Yeah so they get less hassle when occupying, and can get on with killing people without the locals doing their bit to make it difficult for them.

    You don't understand the meaning of 'murder'. If you are a solider, and you kill another soldier you have murdered a person (see, doesn't have to be a civilian, just a y'know, a human being. Please do not try to say that murder is ok when you wear the queens uniform and spout patriotic ********. I mean, if a man abuses his wife is it ok to kill him?

    I don't agree with your criticism of Annie on the previous page of this thread (after all, we ALL have subjective views) but do agree with your own point of view entirely. I fail to see why people believe that killing is okay under any circumstance, or that it's ok when you're in the army.
    The soldiers talk about defeating those such as the Nazis (and have, in fact, in this thread), but in an identical way to the Nazis they feel they're suddenly able to kill, and should have respect for it, when they put on an army uniform and do so in the name of the army.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Varsity)
    A nuclear deterrent prevent a full scale invasion only.
    In case you have not notices we are an Island nation which means over 90% of our trade is by sea.
    Put very simply, without a standing military we could not have the economic power we enjoy currently so you are enjoying the benefits of their protection, and that's without me even going into anything historical.
    Once again, what exactly am I being protected from?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cpj1987)
    I don't agree with your criticism of Annie on the previous page of this thread (after all, we ALL have subjective views) but do agree with your own point of view entirely. I fail to see why people believe that killing is okay under any circumstance, or that it's ok when you're in the army.
    The soldiers talk about defeating those such as the Nazis (and have, in fact, in this thread), but in an identical way to the Nazis they feel they're suddenly able to kill, and should have respect for it, when they put on an army uniform and do so in the name of the army.
    Thanks . Thats the thing with these type of threads, we all have our own viewpoint on the same thing. I am not saying that any of us its right or wrong....its just our own thoughts. I may have a slightly different view to someone else about our soldiers, I know/knew soldiers as just ordinary men ( and women), just like me. I cannot see them as heartless murderers. Like I said , they are just protecting Queen and Country.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cpj1987)
    The soldiers talk about defeating those such as the Nazis (and have, in fact, in this thread), but in an identical way to the Nazis they feel they're suddenly able to kill, and should have respect for it, when they put on an army uniform and do so in the name of the army.
    :ditto:
    Put a murderer in uniform and he is still a murderer.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by numb3rb0y)
    Once again, what exactly am I being protected from?

    They are just murderers who use the existence of other murderers to justify their own murders.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annie72)
    Thanks . Thats the thing with these type of threads, we all have our own viewpoint on the same thing. I am not saying that any of us its right or wrong....its just our own thoughts. I may have a slightly different view to someone else about our soldiers, I know/knew soldiers as just ordinary men ( and women), just like me. I cannot see them as heartless murderers. Like I said , they are just protecting Queen and Country.
    Exactly. We all have very different views, and I fail to see why, in so many TSR debates, people are criticised for bringing personal experience into their argument and making it subjective. What use is any argument NOT based on real thought or experience? They just don't exist.
    I'm certainly not saying my view is the only right one, nor do I believe yours is right, but there'd be no point in discussing anything if we all came to the same magical conclusion without personal experience coming into play.
    Why, on TSR, does there have to be a right answer to absolutely EVERYTHING?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annie72)
    Like I said , they are just protecting Queen and Country.
    Queen? Great, they're supporting a jingoistic and outdated idea from the Imperialist days...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by isitjustme...)

    Win over hearts and minds? Yeah so they get less hassle when occupying, and can get on with killing people without the locals doing their bit to make it difficult for them.

    You don't understand the meaning of 'murder'. If you are a solider, and you kill another soldier you have murdered a person (see, doesn't have to be a civilian, just a y'know, a human being. Please do not try to say that murder is ok when you wear the queens uniform and spout patriotic ********. I mean, if a man abuses his wife is it ok to kill him?
    Killing another soldier is not murder, because under international law war makes it a 'lawful' killing - very, very big distinction. Also killing another soldier is self-defense, if you do not kill him then he will probably kill you.

    Surely if the locals are on side then by killing the enemy, in this case taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, you are acting for the local people. Are you suggesting that we should never wage war, even if other countries attack us, because war involves killing?? Very naive - at the end of the day we are all nation-states and every government acts to defend its people. Is it our fault that Al Qaeda attacked us (I am an American btw)? No. Should we allow them to attack us again?? NO.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dn013)
    Killing another soldier is not murder, because under international law war makes it a 'lawful' killing
    :rolleyes:
    Oh, that's ok then. Nothing like a good international law to make it 'one rule for one, another rule for another'. It's fine to kill if the LAW says so...
    :confused:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cpj1987)
    :rolleyes:
    Oh, that's ok then. Nothing like a good international law to make it 'one rule for one, another rule for another'. It's fine to kill if the LAW says so...
    :confused:
    Yes it is.

    I remember you were the person who said that you had no respect for WW2 vets, so if you cant kill then how would have dealt with WW2?? Lets say Hitler invades Poland, you are PM of GB what do you do?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MichaelG)
    Are you actually serious? Homeland troops are fighting around the world so the threat doesn't get a chance to arrive at our little island.
    And that is juxtaposed by the hundreds of legal and illegal immigrants that enter into the country every day, posing a potential threat to our homeland security. On top of that you have the residents that are themselves dangerous. Terrorism and invasion isn't something that needs to come from a far off land. It can come from anywhere, in any direction, at any time, and for any reason. So to believe that fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is vastly reducing the risk of homeland security issues is ridiculous. All you're doing is allocating homeland resources to far off lands, making them effectively useless where they're actually needed.

    You know i'm glad my great uncle died fighting in WW2, so you could spout your selfish views on an internet forum.
    Well first of all, if your uncle had lived, it wouldn't have made much difference. He didn't have to die to preserve my freedom, he could done the same thing while being alive. In fact, I'd be more willing to respect him if he managed to survive the war and protect our freedoms.

    And remember that quite a lot of the people who fought in WWII didn't CHOOSE to do it. They were faced with fighting in the war or going to prison. So I don't see why you would bring your uncle into this as if I should respect him too?

    At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what you think, because people out there are willing to risk their lives so you can continue to live freely and say whatever you think is right.
    You're right, it doesn't matter what I think. I'm allowed to respect, disrespect or remain neutral as I see fit. My current position regarding troops is to remain neutral. It makes no difference, but that doesn't seem to stop your panties from getting in a twist for some reason.

    I don't blame you for thinking like that, i mean its not as if you can even begin to comprehend the commitment soldiers have to go through day in and day out. At least I appreciate and donate to the sacrifices individuals make, families make, friends make. Can you say you contribute anything as phenomenal as what our British troops are committing? I think it would be a good idea if you should research some war victim charities.
    War victim charities? Yes, because they're going to give a disinterested, non-bias and well balanced account of the realities of war, aren't they?

    I don't really care what commitment the soldiers go through everyday.

    First of all, not all of them go through it. Some of them do 10 years of service and never see a battlefield. That's why it's unreasonable to immediately respect troops just because they are troops. There's some sort of association between the word 'troop' and images of war-battered strongmen with missing limbs and mental trauma. That might be true in a small minority of cases, but it's simply not a valid representation of the majority of troops in the modern military. They're not all heroes. Some of them are cowards. Some of them are future convicts. Some of them are weak-minded manipulators. Some of them just want the freedom to fire weapons at people. Some of them rape innocents. Some of them have not an ounce of moral fibre or a conscience.

    I have no idea why people assume that because somebody is a troop, he must be a brave well-disciplined intelligent spark of life with nothing but the best of moral intentions and an over-whelming desire to save the world. That's a deluded image of the military.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cpj1987)
    :rolleyes:
    Oh, that's ok then. Nothing like a good international law to make it 'one rule for one, another rule for another'. It's fine to kill if the LAW says so...
    :confused:
    Your comments would be better targeted at a government. The government has a choice as to whether wage war or not to - by the time a soldier is in a situation where he is going to have to kill he is usually acting in self defense.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Most of the guys I know have respect for our soldiers, as do I
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cpj1987)
    :rolleyes:
    Oh, that's ok then. Nothing like a good international law to make it 'one rule for one, another rule for another'. It's fine to kill if the LAW says so...
    :confused:

    In armed conflict, a soldier is only allowed to take life that is a threat to his - i.e "my life or his". That is the basic rule - hence, a soldier will not kill an enemy soldier who surrenders his weapon, as he is no longer a threat. Of course, in war, innocent people get caught up in the fighting, but they are not the target. Just like in a police action, the target is the criminals - but that doesn't mean a bystander might not get hurt in the process. And, not everybody follows the rules.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riever86)
    In armed conflict, a soldier is only allowed to take life that is a threat to his - i.e "my life or his". That is the basic rule - hence, a soldier will not kill an enemy soldier who surrenders his weapon, as he is no longer a threat. Of course, in war, innocent people get caught up in the fighting, but they are not the target. Just like in a police action, the target is the criminals - but that doesn't mean a bystander might not get hurt in the process. And, not everybody follows the rules.
    shame not every country follows the rules of engagement


    i think a lot of people get mixed with not supporting a war, and disrespecting our soldiers, i respect what they do, its a tough job, and get paid peanuts for it
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Georgecopter)

    What OP and other people have done is confused reality with the world offered by the media.
    Hahaha so true.

    Akin to those express readers who refuse to leave their homes for fear of being surrounded by nasty jobless immigrants.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dn013)
    Killing another soldier is not murder, because under international law war makes it a 'lawful' killing - very, very big distinction. Also killing another soldier is self-defense, if you do not kill him then he will probably kill you.

    Surely if the locals are on side then by killing the enemy, in this case taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, you are acting for the local people. Are you suggesting that we should never wage war, even if other countries attack us, because war involves killing?? Very naive - at the end of the day we are all nation-states and every government acts to defend its people. Is it our fault that Al Qaeda attacked us (I am an American btw)? No. Should we allow them to attack us again?? NO.


    For **** sake. Very big distinction? Don't make me laugh. 'Lawful' killing. Are you so conventionally minded that you think if politicians and judges say something is ok, then its ok? It's still murder. End of. And self-defence? Being a soldier have you not brought the situation on yourself?

    If nobody wages war, then nobody will have to defend themselves. Ever thought of that one? And Al Qaeda did not wage war on America, they are a terrorist organisation who should be brought to justice (and that doesn't mean killed). Instead it was America who waged war on a whole country, not merely a small organisation who targeted them and in doing so, encouraged support for them and gave them more publicity than they could ever dream of.

    Going back to the bigger picture, do you not think that attitudes such as yours mean we will never see an end to war? That it'll keep on being justified with ******** terms like 'lawful killing'. Do you not think your attitude has been influenced by the media and politicians? Who is 'us'? You are an individual, the country you were born in is nothing more than a piece of land, it is nothing to die for. Face it, war is driven by patriotism, xenophobia and desire for power whether that's political or economic, asserting dominance or just saving face in the international community. There is nothing humanitarian about it. That's the drivel that we are encouraged to think so the status quo can be maintained.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by isitjustme...)
    For **** sake. Very big distinction? Don't make me laugh. 'Lawful' killing. Are you so conventionally minded that you think if politicians and judges say something is ok, then its ok? It's still murder. End of. And self-defence? Being a soldier have you not brought the situation on yourself?

    If nobody wages war, then nobody will have to defend themselves. Ever thought of that one? And Al Qaeda did not wage war on America, they are a terrorist organisation who should be brought to justice (and that doesn't mean killed). Instead it was America who waged war on a whole country, not merely a small organisation who targeted them and in doing so, encouraged support for them and gave them more publicity than they could ever dream of.

    Going back to the bigger picture, do you not think that attitudes such as yours mean we will never see an end to war? That it'll keep on being justified with ******** terms like 'lawful killing'. Do you not think your attitude has been influenced by the media and politicians? Who is 'us'? You are an individual, the country you were born in is nothing more than a piece of land, it is nothing to die for. Face it, war is driven by patriotism, xenophobia and desire for power whether that's political or economic, asserting dominance or just saving face in the international community. There is nothing humanitarian about it. That's the drivel that we are encouraged to think so the status quo can be maintained.
    The world would be nice without war, but war will always exist so deal with it.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • 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

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