yep, thats about the top and bottom of it..trouble is, if i lived in the zoo that is america, and had to put up with a government even more criminal and hellbent on restricting civil rights than our own, id 'prolly' walk around with a shooter tucked into the waistband of my calvins too...thus completing the circle of lunacy...but thats what you get when a country is filled with right wing children and where the local plod ram cars into petrol stations and people get shot in the head for jumping a red light...
A "valid" war. How do you define "valid"and "not valid" in the context of whether you would be prepared to die or send your kids to die. The words fight and die mean the same here.
Didnt see Afganistan trying to take over the world...or Vietnam...and nor were our sovereign waters breached and invaded. If it ticks one of those two things, its valid. or then again if Chuck says it is, it probaby is
To me, a "Valid" war is one in which I see no other course of action than war to prevent some clear evil-doer attacking me, my family or my homeland. Retaliation for my governments meddling in the affairs of overseas sovereign nations (e.g. Iraq, Israel, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Falklands and Korea) do NOT count. Hence my comment that, for me, the last "Valid" war was WW2.
A good point has been made here. "The War On Terror" could be said to have its roots in the interference the West has been responsible for in its attempts to play "king-maker" abroad. TWoT is the West's retaliation for the retaliation of foreign nations against the West's ill-advised foreign policy of years gone by. Successive governments in the twentieth century thought they could play "God" where the development of less advanced nations was concerned. How to break the cycle of retaliation, though? Too much vested interest in the status quo, for all nations concerned (not just those of the West).
People have a right to object legitimately on conscientious grounds to killing other people in a war. That right does not apply to being killed by the enemy in a war.
You do know the falklands is a BRITISH island with BRITISH citazens dont you? Does another country have to invade the channel islands to count?
I DO know yes, though the British rights to claim a piece of land 8000 miles away might be somewhat open to question. I strongly suspect potential oil/mineral rights in the surrounding territories/waters have more to do with that claim than the rights of the islanders. ANYWAY, that notwithstanding, it's generally historically accepted that joint economic sanctions against Argentina (who were in the depths of a catastrophic economic crisis anyway at that time) could have resolved that issue VERY quickly without the need to sacrifice so many lives (on both sides). IMHO that war had more to do with Thatcher's re-election campaign than any legitimate need to go to war. So no, I don't count that as a valid war, though of the ones I list, it PERHAPS deserves more consideration that the rest.
And sit their with british peoples land invaded by another country!!! And hope sancions work!! Again where would a country have to invade for you to think force would be justifyed? Iom, lewis,skye? How far away from the mainland is bugger all to do with it
But surely, no-one was threatening these islands at the start of WW2? We declared war on Germany, not the other way round, so how can WW2 be a 'valid' war in your terms? It may have become a valid war, but only after we declared war on Germany. An evil-doer was not attacking you, your family or your homeland if you are British and the date is September 1939. We were surely meddling in the affairs of Germany, an overseas, sovereign nation, who had decided to annexe (meddle in the affairs of) a number of sovereign states to the East and then carve up Poland with the help of Russia. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain announces Britain's declaration of war on Germany, September 3, 1939 The world view that we can choose who we interact with and ignore others is naive and simplistic in it's approach to complex and difficult problems. Note I'm not saying you are naive and simplistic, this is not a personal attack, but just because we pull the covers over our heads doesn't mean the boogie man isn't standing there next to us and will do us harm.
Well, I guess we'll have to respectfully disagree on this one Colz but yes, I think that actually, we have little claim to some rock 8000 miles away that was probably originally discovered by the Spanish or the Portugese or someone esle anyway (I'll google). And would I rather wait two-six months while economic and political sanctions took effect rather than see good knows how many young men get killed/maimed (on both sides)? Yes I would. And I expect they and their parents would too. It's not like the Argentinians are pillaging/raping/murderous vikings is it? If you've ever been to Argentina you'll find they're actually very hospitable and fun people. I seriously doubt the Falkland islanders would have suffered in the time it took for the Argentinians to realise they'd bitten off more than they could chew. Galtierri was a twat and was hugely unpopular with his own people. The Falkland campaign was him grandstanding and he wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes if Argentina had been financially cut off from the rest of the world. Indeed, he vanished shortly afterward anyway. So that's may take on it. Hey, it's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Yeah, it's a good point Royum and I don't take it personally at all. I guess with Hitler, his ambitions were patently clear for all to see when he invaded one after another of the european countries. It was patently clear that we'd be next and Poland was the last straw. These days, I suppose I have to modify my definition of an attack to include our direct allies but it becomes very interesting when asked to decide where to draw the line. I must admit I don't have a good answer to that one and would have to decide on a case by case basis e.g. France invaded = war. Israel = Nope. Uzbekistan = Nope. Iran = Nope etc. Maybe I don't feel like there's been another aggressive threat like Hitler since and that's why I object to the rest of the wars. So thank you for making me think!
Pretty sure we will disagree on this. I know if my familly was in the falklands when they were invaded i would have been pretty pissed if we had sat back and did sod all except wave bits of paper at them, sanctions always work so well(iraq,iran,japan,n/korea)
Oh and hitler didnt want war with the uk, his aim was always ussr, he wanted us and the frogs on side for that
Sanctions tend to hurt the everyday people, not those in power who can afford to circumvent the worst effects of them. Targeting the financial affairs of those in power has limited effect inside another nation. I'm afraid we need all of our tools available in this workshop, just in case that weeping banjo becomes a big end shell failure that manages to trash con rods and crank cases. Who was it that said 'walk softly in this world, but in thy right hand carry a big f*ck off meat cleaver'?
Hi I'm fully aware. 1. Ex wife of USAF Staff Sergeant while he went through ranks. 2.my husband and I belonged to base gun club. He owned a few guns and regularly used the range. 3. I was a wife during the Gulf war. Several friends had to leave service due to PTSD and I also spent time with some guys who had been hospitalised unable to cope. Let me point out USAF & their military runs differently then ours. Different intake of people !!! My uncle was in the RAF and how that is compared to USAF ... Wow. If you don't know what to do after graduation, or have not done as well as you should a lot of parents send their children on basic training . So sadly and it's true you get a lot of guys there because they don't have a choice , don't want to be or parents pushed them in.. These usually low rank. The ones that are higher usually work hard and want to get somewhere. Do we have things like fat Camp and stuff ?? Some guys just don't want to be there get obese and can't be arsed and are sent to no joke fat camp. Others can't cope end up in hospital and are discharged . 2 close friends had total mental breakdowns had to be shipped out and discharged. One was a total liability .. That was not picked up for a long long time!!!!!! The attitude is different to our forces . I've met guys brainwashed to the point of could only repeat the same thing over and over . Again shipped out. Most had been pushed into basic training because no where else to go. It's way different to our guys. A lot more unstable characters. Sorry but true I experienced first hand. So yes ... I do have a right to comment after being married to the American Military .
It's not the best plan in the world to take someone with PTSD somewhere like a range if they are having flashbacks and stuff . It's not the guy who's unwells fault . Sounds like he was not being assessed well . All il say is this . Taking a bloke with PTST to a firing range is stupid. Anything a smell a sound can trigger you off. Now in a way it was lucky he was taken there. What could have happened if they had their guns at home ??? Sounds like the guy did not get the support or medical attention / hospitalisation he may have needed. Sounds like once again the system failed again.
