No, what I'm saying is, that if someone I know is stupid enough to sign that piece of paper then I wish them luck and hope they get out in one piece. I'll still tell them it's a really, really bad idea. If it's someone I don't know, I don't feel the need to respect them for doing something that I consider to be a bad idea. Why is this such a difficult concept. If I told you that I belived I would help people by shoving my hand into a fire, would you demand that people respect me for it.
Do you also not realise that you are yet again proving my point. You are implying that if I would not say anything disparaging near a soldier as he would respond with violence - would those be the actions of the honourable warrior or the hired muscle?
------
Completely wrong sadly I'm afraid. What you need to realise is how silly you sound trying to twist your words to cover the gaping holes which your flawed rhetoric have left behind! Must do better I'm afraid. You're just proving my point that you don't really know what you're talking about and are talking yourself into a corner.
You know what you said, you say you're not having a go at the Servicemen, yet how can you reconcile this with calling them stupid, indoctrinated and thuggish? Again, I didn't say that you would not say anything disparaging near *a* soldier, what I did say was that you wouldn't be so insulting to soldiers which you claim you know who I presume are good friends of yours. Oh! I wonder how they would feel if they knew what you really feel about their profession. You'll be surprised, rather than dishing out violence, I think they'd be rather disappointed and hurt, just like any other member of a respectable profession.
Stevie boy then said:
What? How does accepting that I might have to defend my rights have anything to do with respecting people who sign up to fight for what is the largest threat against my rights? I'm sure that it felt good when you slipped in that subtle homosexuality reference at the end.
Unfortunately it just shows your own homophobia that you think I'd be insulted by it - I'm not, sorry.
--------
Now now, no need to get so hot under the collar, I was merely explaining to you the fact that you have to accept that rights do sometimes have to be defended with the rifle as well as with the banner and the placard. It is the ultimate conundrum of liberal parliamentary democracy: just how does such a society defend itself from forces bent on destroying it without destroying the very rights and freedoms it is sworn to uphold?
And do please cease the needless microanalysis, the homosexuality reference is a nod to such regimes around the world to which it is considered an abomination of the devil. Such regimes who would take delightful pleasure in cracking down on what is considered here a right of the individual. Simple baseless accusations will get you nowhere sonny jim! If you're that rattled by the thought of people being executed simply for their sexual preference, should you really be on this comment list at all?
Stev-man followed with:
Respond with armed mobs of irregular civilians. Or maybe use our police force. Or maybe have a special force to defend the country from invasion - no, that is not "just what the army are".
-----
Well that is a rather easy way of getting out of a question which has in effect struck you dumb! How would using armed mobs or Paramilitary police be any better at upholding rights and preventing abuses than any other standing army? And remember, as we have seen with the RUC in Ulster and the Gendarme in France, the lines between a Police service and a Military force can blur quite easily.
Furthermore, in order to deal with such insurrection abroad, your police force/paramilitary force would need to be adequately equipped, protected and *armed* in order to both defend themselves and put down whatever situation they may face. And all of that requires funding. Lots of funding.
This is where the problem lies with spouting such grand rhetoric as "Lets do away with the army!" It just doesn't add up on either an organizational, financial or even a logical basis.
Finally:
So without the standing armies of conscripts, it would have been harder to start the war. How does that invalidate my assertion that, without armies, governments cannot start wars and that it's harder to keep support for a war when you use conscription? It's easiest to fight with a volunteer military, it's harder with conscripts and it's impossible without any military. This ain't rocket surgery people.
----------
You've missed the point, if all those nations had small, highly professional armies on the scale of the UK at that time then it would have been much harder to start a war than it would have been had they held large numbers of conscripted armies.
Your assertion is of your own opinion. There are arguments for and against the effect of conscription on a national populace. The results are inconclusive, having a conscripted army will not automatically generate general public hostility nor will it create audacious acclaim either. In a situation of war, it would depend on the circumstances. A citizen army would be far more prepared to fight a war in which it believed in, such as a war against a totalitarian enemy guilty of genocide, than it would against some vague insurgent enemy hiding in the jungles amongst the civilian populace.
Ah well, all good things come to an end. Consider yourself thoroughly vanquished sir!
I'm not trying to have a go at the soldiers, I just don't like being repeatedly told how much I need to respect them - especially those daft enough to fall for those ads. There's only so much sympathy I can find before I just think, "It's the army, not the Post Office. What did you expect?" Individual soldiers that I might know, I wish the best of luck, otherwise they're just an adult who made what I consider to be a very bad choice with foreseeable consequences.
---
I do find it deliciously hilarious that Stefano here is in the same breath essentially saying:
"I'm not having a go at the soldiers! They may be stupid, indoctrinated, ignorant and essentially thugs but in no way am I having a go at them!"
For such a brave little lad, I'd like you to repeat your opinions to those "individual soldiers you might know", especially the bits where you call them stupid thugs.
To be brutally honest, these opinions are typical of someone poorly informed, happy to use the exception to (falsely) paint what he sees as the norm in terms of violence by soldiers without mentioning that what he is proposing is essentially unfeasible, riddled with innacuracies and ignoring basic facts.
For example, saying "Nobody under sixty 'remembers World War Two'" only nitpicks the original point that World War Two is a lesson that everyone should learn. What would a world without armies do if a nation became bent on genocide and ethnic cleansing via armed mobs of irregular civilians for example?
Also, the blame for why we went into the Great War can be laid squarely at those in the Foreign Office for signing Britain into a myriad of treaties which were flawed from the start, not the military. Franz Ferdinand might have been shot but it is still blindingly obvious that if Austria-Hungary, France, Germany and Russia had not had major conscription schemes in place, war would have been a far more remote a possibility. Britain's involvement came as a result of the rapid mobilisations and movement of millions of men over thousands of miles, triggering obscure treaties which nobody had ever thought would have seen the light of day again. Portugal, for example, was drawn into the Great War thanks to a then 400 odd year old treaty of mutual assurance.
At the end of the day, I disagree with your opinions. I think they're poorly researched, lack any sort of substance other than to be "different" or to cause a reaction and they're ignoring the massive contribution servicemen make in the cause of humanity outside of major conflict.
BUT, I agree completely with your right to air those views. And I would fight to ensure that you had the right to air those views. And that at the end of the day must be your biggest frustration. That you must accept that at some point, you will be placed in a position where you will either have to fight for your rights, or lay down willingly before a greater power who does not believe in such things as free speech, human rights or even things like homosexuality.
Stephany, I do not doubt that you are a good man with generally sound views. But I do not think you need to be so outrageous and (I'm sorry to say) selfish with you thoughts on this.
I'm sure one of the reasons why the RAF loves the Typhoon to bits so much is because the RAF brass love nice, flashy kit that flies at high speeds and makes things go "boom" in the air and (after modification) on the ground too.
Sadly, the RAF don't really like slow, lumbering and large aircraft like helicopters or transport aircraft as they look boring, sound boring, don't really go very well with the pilot's superbike and they come with annoying requirements like being forced to carry loads of smelly Paras or food to the unfashionable starving masses abroad.
Hence why the lions share of the cash goes on the Typhoon and the C-130 barely gets cash to outfit it with countermeasures to help it deal with an air to air missile hitting it for example.
In truth, it'd be far better if the Army and Royal Navy be given ownership of the chopper fleet and the RAF be forced to spend x amount on its transport fleet.
Paris because the crabs are more into bling than things that are actually useful!
Yes George, but only if you think not fitting a ship specifically designed (apparently) to fill an area air defence role (i.e. the Type 42) with any actual weaponry to actually do anything remotely useful in regards to area air defence falls under the slogan "execution is often their biggest flaw."
I'm sure the survivors of HMS Sheffield feel so much better having read your spirited defence of the MoD's bean counters.
In Japan, Semacodes are HUGE! Everything from books to billboard adverts to canned drinks will have semacodes listing I-Mode addresses, web addresses, phone numbers and other sorts of info for special offers, content, etc.
Music stores usually have semacodes with addresses to special content on the web or via I-Mode for your favourite Dir en Grey or Ayumi Hamasaki style artist. Also you can print them out over the web.
Semacodes are HUGE in Japan and the Far East, and they're only just starting to take off over here too. Awesome that Nokia noticed the trend in Japan and are getting in there first and I'm seriously surprised LG, NEC and Samsung haven't got Semacode compatible phones yet!
Register
5 posts • joined Tuesday 1st May 2007 22:17 GMT
@ Steve
Stefano said:
No, what I'm saying is, that if someone I know is stupid enough to sign that piece of paper then I wish them luck and hope they get out in one piece. I'll still tell them it's a really, really bad idea. If it's someone I don't know, I don't feel the need to respect them for doing something that I consider to be a bad idea. Why is this such a difficult concept. If I told you that I belived I would help people by shoving my hand into a fire, would you demand that people respect me for it.
Do you also not realise that you are yet again proving my point. You are implying that if I would not say anything disparaging near a soldier as he would respond with violence - would those be the actions of the honourable warrior or the hired muscle?
------
Completely wrong sadly I'm afraid. What you need to realise is how silly you sound trying to twist your words to cover the gaping holes which your flawed rhetoric have left behind! Must do better I'm afraid. You're just proving my point that you don't really know what you're talking about and are talking yourself into a corner.
You know what you said, you say you're not having a go at the Servicemen, yet how can you reconcile this with calling them stupid, indoctrinated and thuggish? Again, I didn't say that you would not say anything disparaging near *a* soldier, what I did say was that you wouldn't be so insulting to soldiers which you claim you know who I presume are good friends of yours. Oh! I wonder how they would feel if they knew what you really feel about their profession. You'll be surprised, rather than dishing out violence, I think they'd be rather disappointed and hurt, just like any other member of a respectable profession.
Stevie boy then said:
What? How does accepting that I might have to defend my rights have anything to do with respecting people who sign up to fight for what is the largest threat against my rights? I'm sure that it felt good when you slipped in that subtle homosexuality reference at the end.
Unfortunately it just shows your own homophobia that you think I'd be insulted by it - I'm not, sorry.
--------
Now now, no need to get so hot under the collar, I was merely explaining to you the fact that you have to accept that rights do sometimes have to be defended with the rifle as well as with the banner and the placard. It is the ultimate conundrum of liberal parliamentary democracy: just how does such a society defend itself from forces bent on destroying it without destroying the very rights and freedoms it is sworn to uphold?
And do please cease the needless microanalysis, the homosexuality reference is a nod to such regimes around the world to which it is considered an abomination of the devil. Such regimes who would take delightful pleasure in cracking down on what is considered here a right of the individual. Simple baseless accusations will get you nowhere sonny jim! If you're that rattled by the thought of people being executed simply for their sexual preference, should you really be on this comment list at all?
Stev-man followed with:
Respond with armed mobs of irregular civilians. Or maybe use our police force. Or maybe have a special force to defend the country from invasion - no, that is not "just what the army are".
-----
Well that is a rather easy way of getting out of a question which has in effect struck you dumb! How would using armed mobs or Paramilitary police be any better at upholding rights and preventing abuses than any other standing army? And remember, as we have seen with the RUC in Ulster and the Gendarme in France, the lines between a Police service and a Military force can blur quite easily.
Furthermore, in order to deal with such insurrection abroad, your police force/paramilitary force would need to be adequately equipped, protected and *armed* in order to both defend themselves and put down whatever situation they may face. And all of that requires funding. Lots of funding.
This is where the problem lies with spouting such grand rhetoric as "Lets do away with the army!" It just doesn't add up on either an organizational, financial or even a logical basis.
Finally:
So without the standing armies of conscripts, it would have been harder to start the war. How does that invalidate my assertion that, without armies, governments cannot start wars and that it's harder to keep support for a war when you use conscription? It's easiest to fight with a volunteer military, it's harder with conscripts and it's impossible without any military. This ain't rocket surgery people.
----------
You've missed the point, if all those nations had small, highly professional armies on the scale of the UK at that time then it would have been much harder to start a war than it would have been had they held large numbers of conscripted armies.
Your assertion is of your own opinion. There are arguments for and against the effect of conscription on a national populace. The results are inconclusive, having a conscripted army will not automatically generate general public hostility nor will it create audacious acclaim either. In a situation of war, it would depend on the circumstances. A citizen army would be far more prepared to fight a war in which it believed in, such as a war against a totalitarian enemy guilty of genocide, than it would against some vague insurgent enemy hiding in the jungles amongst the civilian populace.
Ah well, all good things come to an end. Consider yourself thoroughly vanquished sir!
And yes, I am five! Good day!
@Steve
Stevie boy said:
I'm not trying to have a go at the soldiers, I just don't like being repeatedly told how much I need to respect them - especially those daft enough to fall for those ads. There's only so much sympathy I can find before I just think, "It's the army, not the Post Office. What did you expect?" Individual soldiers that I might know, I wish the best of luck, otherwise they're just an adult who made what I consider to be a very bad choice with foreseeable consequences.
---
I do find it deliciously hilarious that Stefano here is in the same breath essentially saying:
"I'm not having a go at the soldiers! They may be stupid, indoctrinated, ignorant and essentially thugs but in no way am I having a go at them!"
For such a brave little lad, I'd like you to repeat your opinions to those "individual soldiers you might know", especially the bits where you call them stupid thugs.
To be brutally honest, these opinions are typical of someone poorly informed, happy to use the exception to (falsely) paint what he sees as the norm in terms of violence by soldiers without mentioning that what he is proposing is essentially unfeasible, riddled with innacuracies and ignoring basic facts.
For example, saying "Nobody under sixty 'remembers World War Two'" only nitpicks the original point that World War Two is a lesson that everyone should learn. What would a world without armies do if a nation became bent on genocide and ethnic cleansing via armed mobs of irregular civilians for example?
Also, the blame for why we went into the Great War can be laid squarely at those in the Foreign Office for signing Britain into a myriad of treaties which were flawed from the start, not the military. Franz Ferdinand might have been shot but it is still blindingly obvious that if Austria-Hungary, France, Germany and Russia had not had major conscription schemes in place, war would have been a far more remote a possibility. Britain's involvement came as a result of the rapid mobilisations and movement of millions of men over thousands of miles, triggering obscure treaties which nobody had ever thought would have seen the light of day again. Portugal, for example, was drawn into the Great War thanks to a then 400 odd year old treaty of mutual assurance.
At the end of the day, I disagree with your opinions. I think they're poorly researched, lack any sort of substance other than to be "different" or to cause a reaction and they're ignoring the massive contribution servicemen make in the cause of humanity outside of major conflict.
BUT, I agree completely with your right to air those views. And I would fight to ensure that you had the right to air those views. And that at the end of the day must be your biggest frustration. That you must accept that at some point, you will be placed in a position where you will either have to fight for your rights, or lay down willingly before a greater power who does not believe in such things as free speech, human rights or even things like homosexuality.
Stephany, I do not doubt that you are a good man with generally sound views. But I do not think you need to be so outrageous and (I'm sorry to say) selfish with you thoughts on this.
Hum!
I'm sure one of the reasons why the RAF loves the Typhoon to bits so much is because the RAF brass love nice, flashy kit that flies at high speeds and makes things go "boom" in the air and (after modification) on the ground too.
Sadly, the RAF don't really like slow, lumbering and large aircraft like helicopters or transport aircraft as they look boring, sound boring, don't really go very well with the pilot's superbike and they come with annoying requirements like being forced to carry loads of smelly Paras or food to the unfashionable starving masses abroad.
Hence why the lions share of the cash goes on the Typhoon and the C-130 barely gets cash to outfit it with countermeasures to help it deal with an air to air missile hitting it for example.
In truth, it'd be far better if the Army and Royal Navy be given ownership of the chopper fleet and the RAF be forced to spend x amount on its transport fleet.
Paris because the crabs are more into bling than things that are actually useful!
@ George
Execution is often their biggest flaw?
Yes George, but only if you think not fitting a ship specifically designed (apparently) to fill an area air defence role (i.e. the Type 42) with any actual weaponry to actually do anything remotely useful in regards to area air defence falls under the slogan "execution is often their biggest flaw."
I'm sure the survivors of HMS Sheffield feel so much better having read your spirited defence of the MoD's bean counters.
More about Semacodes
In Japan, Semacodes are HUGE! Everything from books to billboard adverts to canned drinks will have semacodes listing I-Mode addresses, web addresses, phone numbers and other sorts of info for special offers, content, etc.
Music stores usually have semacodes with addresses to special content on the web or via I-Mode for your favourite Dir en Grey or Ayumi Hamasaki style artist. Also you can print them out over the web.
Semacodes are HUGE in Japan and the Far East, and they're only just starting to take off over here too. Awesome that Nokia noticed the trend in Japan and are getting in there first and I'm seriously surprised LG, NEC and Samsung haven't got Semacode compatible phones yet!