Gen Dannatt: Majority of Our Opponents Are Not Bad People

#41
urbanite said:
I only pointed it out because I was told that I was able to read English 'thanks to a soldier'.
So you don't deny this, then.

. Don't see their sons serving, do you?
Politicians: not this Governemnt. Plenty of the Tories had an active Second World War, good few medals amongst the last Tory Cabinet.

You may not be aware that HM The Queen has family that has or is serving.

I am not free because you have trashed Iraq, let's just get that straight now. Not everyone buys the line that we are 'free' because we have an army going round the world invading other people's countries.
I dont think that anyone has said that this is the case. The "freedom" you refer to is probably that bought by the defeat of the Nazis ( you'll find a bit about them in Wikipedia ) and the containment of the USSR / Communists ( Wiki will help, again. ) following the end of WW2.

The irony is that the opposite is true - we are turned into a target.
How on earth are *you* a target?

Soldiers have to believe it though to give them some purpose.
Not really; its a job. You previously mentioned the need to recruit through poverty, lack of education and lack of prospects; this argument differs - so, does the Army recruit from the poor or from those seeking a purpose?

I don't have to believe it, I am free to use my head.
Indeed, and I am free to form my opinion of you based on your posts.

( clue: Rick, from The Young Ones. Sorry. )
 
#42
Ignoring the urbanite tosspot and getting back to what Dannet said...........the key word is opponents. It matters not one piece of the brown stuff whether they are 'good' people or not, if they are opponents then they are the foe. Maybe it was a bad choice of word by Dannet.
 
#43
exile1 said:
Ignoring the urbanite tosspot and getting back to what Dannet said...........the key word is opponents. It matters not one piece of the brown stuff whether they are 'good' people or not, if they are opponents then they are the foe. Maybe it was a bad choice of word by Dannet.
Don't you get it? It blows the myth out the water about the 'terrorists' in Iraq. He has revealed that the 'enemy' are those out to protect their country, their jobs, their security, their hope. If THAT'S who you consider the 'enemy' then who has the moral highground here exactly? Or doesn't a little thing like morality matter to you?

It wasn't a bad choice of words, it was worse than that - it was the truth. And I'm sure Dannatt had better watch his back one of these days because the truth is a dangerous thing.

And the 'urbanite tosspot' brought it to your attention in the first place actually.
 
#44
There haven't been a million deaths or anything like that, as it would work out at over 550 per day, when the recorded average has been only around 40-50 during the entire war. Even if you double that figure, your at 200,000 tops, and before someone goes off at me for saying (which i'm not) that 200,000 isn't a lot, I think some degree of accuracy is needed here.
 
#45
urbanite said:
Bravo_Bravo said:
urbanite said:
"P.S I have my mother and teachers to thank for being able to read in English.
Actually, you should thank those that gave or risked their lives in WW2.

I'm sure British soldiers are not at a very advanced reading level, on average, let's be honest
Even though you have no grounds for this jibe, so what? Soldiers are willing to put their lives on the line so that people have the freedom to moan about them. These thick squaddies inhabit a considerably higher moral ground than most supine whiners.


You feign an education; can you tell us who these "freedom fighters / resistance" are kiiling, and who the suicide bombs tend to be aimed at?

I do look forward to your answer.
I only pointed it out because I was told that I was able to read English 'thanks to a soldier'. I actually think it's a crying shame that soldiers are recruited through poverty, lack of education and lack of prospects but this suits our leaders down to the ground thank-you-very-much. Don't see their sons serving, do you?

I am not free because you have trashed Iraq, let's just get that straight now. Not everyone buys the line that we are 'free' because we have an army going round the world invading other people's countries. The irony is that the opposite is true - we are turned into a target. Soldiers have to believe it though to give them some purpose. I don't have to believe it, I am free to use my head.
You are as entrenched in your perception of current events as are we - no amount of debate on this or any other site will radically alter either position.

but I do know this........................

1. Save your tears: I did not serve 29 years, 6 months and 17 days because I was forced to go for a soldier through a lack of education nor to escape crushing poverty (feck me! I entered a life of crushing poverty for the first 6 years!!). I joined because I wanted to. That may not fit with your LSE view of Fatcher's Brittun but, hey! I did look rather dapper in me best Redcoat and pipeclay :D !!

2. Saddam Hussein was a bad man. He was an evil man. His regime was evil. I have seen the results of his army's handiwork in Kuwait City: the torture chambers in the underground carparks (who of woman born can take a Black and Decker wood plane to another human being??). I have seen the fires from the oil wells. And I saw the result of his later persecution of the Marsh Arabs. The higher moral and philosophical debate concerning the current actions interest me not one jot: good men and women of the British Forces are doing their professional damndest in some really rough housing estates.

Now feck orf and write your Phd elsewhere.
 
#47
Baseplate said:
The higher moral and philosophical debate concerning the current actions interest me not one jot: good men and women of the British Forces are doing their professional damndest in some really rough housing estates.

Now feck orf and write your Phd elsewhere.
Saddam Hussein would have had a job trying to match the killing that the US/UK have been responsible for in Iraq with their years of bombing and sanctions - quite a job indeed.

A shame you don't care about the moral debate - I'd have thought you would even if it were because you have fellow soldiers risking their lives and dying as we speak. But then as I have said (and others shouted me down for) I don't expect a lot of thinking goes on - that would be dangerous.
 
#49
urbanite said:
Baseplate said:
The higher moral and philosophical debate concerning the current actions interest me not one jot: good men and women of the British Forces are doing their professional damndest in some really rough housing estates.

Now feck orf and write your Phd elsewhere.
Saddam Hussein would have had a job trying to match the killing that the US/UK have been responsible for in Iraq with their years of bombing and sanctions - quite a job indeed.

A shame you don't care about the moral debate - I'd have thought you would even if it were because you have fellow soldiers risking their lives and dying as we speak. But then as I have said (and others shouted me down for) I don't expect a lot of thinking goes on - that would be dangerous.
Really?
 
#50
bravo:
I dont think that anyone has said that this is the case. The "freedom" you refer to is probably that bought by the defeat of the Nazis ( you'll find a bit about them in Wikipedia ) and the containment of the USSR / Communists ( Wiki will help, again. ) following the end of WW2.
Bravo it's a post second world war myth that Britain fought for democracy against fascism.
Did we fcuk.
The soldiers then as the soldiers now just fought who they were told to fight. Just happened because of the draft there was more then than there are today.
We fought the Germans. That's who we were fighting. As it happened they were Nazis as well. But it made no difference we'd have fought them anyway.
I knew this as a kid back in the early sixties. Lets face it, the working classes didn't then nor do they now even understand nor really give much of a fcuk about democracy. You can tell that because as soon as anyone opens their mouths about the individuals rights v the state the working class's are slathering at the chops like attack dogs wanting to savage what they see as 'tree hugging guardian readers.'

And lots of the middle classes back then, even though they didn't say it, one could tell they would rather that Britain had been on the side of the Germans.
We only fought against German expansion - that's all.

And we can tell that those people didn't really give a fcuk for democracy because to many of their grand children in this country actually believed you can attack and occupy another country and then introduce democracy there, by force of arms!!!
That's a totally self serving lie or an easily spotted contradiction in terms.
And for that crime I blame the fcuking grandparents who refused to learn the proper lessons from 'winning' the second world war.
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
#51
urbanite said:
Ian Brown was being interviewed about his new single 'Illegal Attacks'. The presenter was squirming all over the place every time Brown said something political and outspoken.
When I think of the great moral philosophers, Ian Brown is always right up there near the top, just after Thomas Aquinas. Do you also subscribe to Britney Spears' theory of just war?
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
#52
goodkurtz said:
We fought the Germans. That's who we were fighting. As it happened they were Nazis as well. But it made no difference we'd have fought them anyway.
I knew this as a kid back in the early sixties. Lets face it, the working classes didn't then nor do they now even understand nor really give much of a fcuk about democracy.
Once again, I expect the membership of Arrse are deeply grateful that you have chosen to share the fruits of your omniscience with us.
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#53
cpunk said:
urbanite said:
Ian Brown was being interviewed about his new single 'Illegal Attacks'. The presenter was squirming all over the place every time Brown said something political and outspoken.
When I think of the great moral philosophers, Ian Brown is always right up there near the top, just after Thomas Aquinas. Do you also subscribe to Britney Spears' theory of just war?
[align=center]***Nehustan imagines Bush Jnr. singing while Bush Snr. accompanies on the piano; 'Whoops, I did it again...'***[/align]
 
#54
Nehustan said:
cpunk said:
urbanite said:
Ian Brown was being interviewed about his new single 'Illegal Attacks'. The presenter was squirming all over the place every time Brown said something political and outspoken.
When I think of the great moral philosophers, Ian Brown is always right up there near the top, just after Thomas Aquinas. Do you also subscribe to Britney Spears' theory of just war?
[align=center]***Nehustan imagines Bush Jnr. singing while Bush Snr. accompanies on the piano; 'Whoops, I did it again...'***[/align]
Bloot!! Coffee-to-keyboard......B*stards!! :D
 
#55
Randomtask:
Smells like moral equivalence to me.Surely not?
Well lets have a quick look at that from the point of view of someone about to die.
You are a non combatant in a house in a Shia area of Basra at the end of GW1. Bush has encouraged an uprising. Saddam crushes it. He sends in his tanks and they flatten the house you are in. You die.

You are a non combatant in a house in a Shia area of Baghdad any time during the past four years. The Americans are surging through your neighbourhood. They suspect there are insurgents in the house you are in. They flatten the house with tank shells or air power. You die.

Seems pretty equivalent to me. But don't take my word for it. Take the dead mans.
 
#56
cpunk said:
Ah but Annakey, I think you might well agree that the premise: 'If we leave them alone, they'll leave us alone' has been shown to be false on a number of occasions over the course of recorded human history.

BTW, from what I could see when I was in Iraq, the US wasn't looking to steal Iraq's oil per se but just to ensure that they could carry on buying it.
Out of curiosity, what exactly were the Iraqis doing to us in the first place?
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#57
bernoulli said:
cpunk said:
Ah but Annakey, I think you might well agree that the premise: 'If we leave them alone, they'll leave us alone' has been shown to be false on a number of occasions over the course of recorded human history.

BTW, from what I could see when I was in Iraq, the US wasn't looking to steal Iraq's oil per se but just to ensure that they could carry on buying it.
Out of curiosity, what exactly were the Iraqis doing to us in the first place?
They were about to launch against Agia Napa...how many pumping 12" tunes can you listen to in 45 minutes...
 
#58
cpunk said:
urbanite said:
Ian Brown was being interviewed about his new single 'Illegal Attacks'. The presenter was squirming all over the place every time Brown said something political and outspoken.
When I think of the great moral philosophers, Ian Brown is always right up there near the top, just after Thomas Aquinas. Do you also subscribe to Britney Spears' theory of just war?
Careful there, CPunk. I think urbanite might be the guy from the "Leave Britney Alone" video.

That having been said, regarding your "they'll follow us here" argument. Let's overlook the implicit conflation you make between the Iraq situation and the Islamic terrorist threat to the UK and think about the wording for a second. For them to have followed us back, we must have been over there in the first place- and that's what annoys them before all else. We've been arsing around in their neighbourhood for a century, and the Turks for 3-4 centuries before that. They look at the Western way of doing things and they see where it has got them thus far. Is it really any great wonder that they decided to have a punt at something else when it comes to the whole new world order bit?

Can anyone please provide details of any and all occasions when Iraq or Afghanistan- or any of its citizens for that matter- have attacked or invaded the UK. I'll be generous and let you include the Iraqi-backed Iranian dissidents at Prince's Gate. Let's not forget who threw the first punch in this particular scrap.
 
#59
bernoulli said:
cpunk said:
Ah but Annakey, I think you might well agree that the premise: 'If we leave them alone, they'll leave us alone' has been shown to be false on a number of occasions over the course of recorded human history.

BTW, from what I could see when I was in Iraq, the US wasn't looking to steal Iraq's oil per se but just to ensure that they could carry on buying it.
Out of curiosity, what exactly were the Iraqis doing to us in the first place?
They were squatting on land under which God (in his mysterious way) had put American oil.
And for that alone - they had to die.
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#60
In all fairness Crabtastic (and being serious for a moment) national interest is synonymous with national sovereignty for some people. An attack on those interests is, to their mind, an attack proper.
 

Latest Threads

Top