More Gw2 Revelations...
Maple,
I would like to thank you for keeping me entertained this afternoon but the Grand Prix has now finished and to be honest I have not got much more to say on the subject.
You are very very wrong if you think I have concluded, but I can see that, just occasionally its better to walk. Debate; if that is what you think its been, has got us nowhere. If, as your last post indicates, you wish to draw you own conclusions as to my debating skills then fine.
As far as my politics go, I voted Mebyon Kernow. Now thats a subject well worth debating and the least said about the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall the better.
Please feel free to pass on my message to Mr Blair if you wish.
I would like to thank you for keeping me entertained this afternoon but the Grand Prix has now finished and to be honest I have not got much more to say on the subject.
You are very very wrong if you think I have concluded, but I can see that, just occasionally its better to walk. Debate; if that is what you think its been, has got us nowhere. If, as your last post indicates, you wish to draw you own conclusions as to my debating skills then fine.
As far as my politics go, I voted Mebyon Kernow. Now thats a subject well worth debating and the least said about the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall the better.
Please feel free to pass on my message to Mr Blair if you wish.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Debate relies on the other guy at least attempting to listen to the other side's argument. You’ve made it plain that you're not interested in debate, but would prefer a monologue where none of your assumptions are challenged - please tell me you're a civi!
Perhaps this forum would be of interest to you?
http://www.whatswrongwithbritain.com/?referrer=google
Have a nice day...........
Perhaps this forum would be of interest to you?
http://www.whatswrongwithbritain.com/?referrer=google
Have a nice day...........
Oh go on then last one, just for Beag's, who must be having a good chuckle over this one.
Yes I am a Civi, left the Military last year after 34 years. Yes, I am, was, still is, a pilot. Yes, I was an Officer (noticed from some of your previous posts you dont seem keen on them). Yes, I did serve in every war/conflict we, (the British) have been involved in since 1974. Yes, I did say all of them.
Feel qualified to comment...................................Yep.
Last thing, I should know better.
Yes I am a Civi, left the Military last year after 34 years. Yes, I am, was, still is, a pilot. Yes, I was an Officer (noticed from some of your previous posts you dont seem keen on them). Yes, I did serve in every war/conflict we, (the British) have been involved in since 1974. Yes, I did say all of them.
Feel qualified to comment...................................Yep.
Last thing, I should know better.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having looked at his profile Maple 01 appears to be an Assistant Air
Traffic Controller.
Let us,therefore, give thanks that we are considered fortunate enough, as Aircrew, to be permitted to receive his pearls of wisdom as to how we should conduct ourselves.
Traffic Controller.
Let us,therefore, give thanks that we are considered fortunate enough, as Aircrew, to be permitted to receive his pearls of wisdom as to how we should conduct ourselves.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi cazatou,
Nice to see you rushing in here, God forbid anyone might have a view that challenges yours, – but perhaps I caught you on a bad day? Belittling and patronising - two for the price of one! Can you actually find any fault with my arguments about GW2 or are you another closed mind?
Edited to ask - as you're ex-RAF living in France, when did you depart?
If you're determined to know my trade why not PM me? Perhaps it's not as it seems?
MOSTAFA
Again BEagle's disease, the old boys claiming 'the world's going to hell in a handcart' chill, you've only got another five years of Labour - pace yourself! Nice to see being retired aircrew makes you an expert on international law too. But if you are going to put yourself to such effort you might try and get your facts straight about me v officers - but hey why bother? - you're aircrew! Ex RAF, but aircrew. Enjoyed the trawl through the back posts?
Nice to see you rushing in here, God forbid anyone might have a view that challenges yours, – but perhaps I caught you on a bad day? Belittling and patronising - two for the price of one! Can you actually find any fault with my arguments about GW2 or are you another closed mind?
Edited to ask - as you're ex-RAF living in France, when did you depart?
If you're determined to know my trade why not PM me? Perhaps it's not as it seems?
MOSTAFA
Again BEagle's disease, the old boys claiming 'the world's going to hell in a handcart' chill, you've only got another five years of Labour - pace yourself! Nice to see being retired aircrew makes you an expert on international law too. But if you are going to put yourself to such effort you might try and get your facts straight about me v officers - but hey why bother? - you're aircrew! Ex RAF, but aircrew. Enjoyed the trawl through the back posts?
Last edited by Maple 01; 12th Jun 2005 at 21:03.
Caz, one thing I have tried not to do is to make it personal between me and Maple. Of course, you have every right to your own opinions but please dont think I was trying drum up support. Neither, am I trying to fall out with you, as Maple seems to think I have with him.
My time in the Military taught me there are good guys, not so good guys and occasionally bad guys, but their job (or rank or Service, come to think of it), never meant much to me. Like all, it occasionally annoyed me but that was just a part of growing up and being British.
Like many, I chose to leave (didn't have to, lost a fortune), when it was confirmed the democratic leader of my country told a downright lie and very very sadly did not have the balls to admit it.
My time in the Military taught me there are good guys, not so good guys and occasionally bad guys, but their job (or rank or Service, come to think of it), never meant much to me. Like all, it occasionally annoyed me but that was just a part of growing up and being British.
Like many, I chose to leave (didn't have to, lost a fortune), when it was confirmed the democratic leader of my country told a downright lie and very very sadly did not have the balls to admit it.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I kind of agree here that it's getting a bit personal, we've had our free and frank exchange of views, passed a dull Sunday and now perhaps we (or at least I) should withdraw.
Goodnight all
Goodnight all
Most....somehow I doubt you pulled up stakes and left Blighty in a snit over that which you suggested. It may have played a role...but somehow I really find that hard to believe. However, that being said....if you in fact did....I tip my hat to you. That would be a noble thing to do if you felt that strongly about it. I wish Alec Baldwin and some of his Hollywood effete buddies....oops sorry...elite buddies would do as they promised when Bush got elected. Alas...they seem to prefer it here despite what they said.
By the way...what constitutes a legal war? What is a war...and what seems like a war but is not? When Britain sent troops to the Suez was that war? When the UK sent troops to Kosovo and Bosnia...was that war? While NATO was dropping bombs in Europe.....was that war? Is not a military action not a "war"....just a difference in size and scope maybe? Was the US invasions of Grenada and Panama a war each or not? Was Gulf One a war.....was Gulf Two? Was Afghanistan a war? Did Russia wage war in Afghanistan? What was the last "good" war....the last "legal" war?
There have been so many wars in my life time....or events called wars....hows a guy to tell what is really a war?
Maybe the better question is ....when was the world ever at peace?
By the way...what constitutes a legal war? What is a war...and what seems like a war but is not? When Britain sent troops to the Suez was that war? When the UK sent troops to Kosovo and Bosnia...was that war? While NATO was dropping bombs in Europe.....was that war? Is not a military action not a "war"....just a difference in size and scope maybe? Was the US invasions of Grenada and Panama a war each or not? Was Gulf One a war.....was Gulf Two? Was Afghanistan a war? Did Russia wage war in Afghanistan? What was the last "good" war....the last "legal" war?
There have been so many wars in my life time....or events called wars....hows a guy to tell what is really a war?
Maybe the better question is ....when was the world ever at peace?
SASless you back again?
You can doubt all you want as far as I am concered, I never said I left Blighty (as you call it), I think your confused with caz there, I only said I left the Military. As for Alec Baldwin, cant say I'd know him if I fell over him!
As for a definition of war, I dunno, I suppose its when people start getting killed on a regular basis. I spent many a year in Northern Ireland, and using your definition of military action, was that a war? Again, I dunno. I do know thousands of people died there which, included hundreds of soldiers. But thats where the problem really starts for me, you see, we went there to protect the lives of British citizens. It might not have turned out that way but thats why we went. In my heart then, I thought it was right and just; and still do today.
Along came the Falklands, agreed most never even knew where they were but again we went there to protect the lives of British citizens. Again I thought it just then and still do today.
Along came the Gulf and Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, in simple terms British citizens were again threatened, I forget how many were garrisoned there but old Saddam wasn't gonna let them go. I thought it was right and just and still do today.
The rest is history but I could not justify the 30+ that die there every day and will continue to die for many a day to come. Yes, the justification then was those magic letters WMD, if any serviceman had doubts why he went there thats it and what Iraq could do with those WMD's.
But we now know that was a lie, dont we and lets face it thats all I have harped on about all day.
You can doubt all you want as far as I am concered, I never said I left Blighty (as you call it), I think your confused with caz there, I only said I left the Military. As for Alec Baldwin, cant say I'd know him if I fell over him!
As for a definition of war, I dunno, I suppose its when people start getting killed on a regular basis. I spent many a year in Northern Ireland, and using your definition of military action, was that a war? Again, I dunno. I do know thousands of people died there which, included hundreds of soldiers. But thats where the problem really starts for me, you see, we went there to protect the lives of British citizens. It might not have turned out that way but thats why we went. In my heart then, I thought it was right and just; and still do today.
Along came the Falklands, agreed most never even knew where they were but again we went there to protect the lives of British citizens. Again I thought it just then and still do today.
Along came the Gulf and Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, in simple terms British citizens were again threatened, I forget how many were garrisoned there but old Saddam wasn't gonna let them go. I thought it was right and just and still do today.
The rest is history but I could not justify the 30+ that die there every day and will continue to die for many a day to come. Yes, the justification then was those magic letters WMD, if any serviceman had doubts why he went there thats it and what Iraq could do with those WMD's.
But we now know that was a lie, dont we and lets face it thats all I have harped on about all day.
Maple et Al
First of all I am still serving, and I actually took part in Gulf War II!! Secondly, while I voted in the last election it was neither for Labour or the Tories (or Lib Dems!). My comments are not politically motivated as part of an anti Blair platform or opinion.
I was 'uncomfortable' as a serving member of the armed forces with the rational for going to war. This country was 'sold' the notion (although many were against it - as shown by the march in London) on the basis of the existance of WMD, whereas the US was always in the game of regime change (which I believe is illegal under international law). It subsequently turned out that the case for WMD was false. While there is no proof, that I am aware of, that the government - the face and driving force of which is indeed Tony Blair - deliberately lied about it there was sufficient evidence in such enquiries that we have had (e.g Hutton) that the likes of Mr Campbell changed the language of some reports to strengthen the governments arguements.
As to whether or not it was a legal war, recent revelations from the attorney general would suggest that the matter was the subject of interpretation - there was no black and white answer. That was part of the reason why the UK government was eager to obtain a further UN resolution!
When pressed on the matter of the reasons for going to war the standard answer from Labour politicians (this is not a political dig at Labour - they are the party in power!!) is 'Would you rather that Saddam was still in power...?' and other such comments. This avoids answering the question, and smacks of the ends justifing the means. If we are going to sally forth and remove all dictators and despots from the world, stop the death of innocents, etc, why are we not in Sudan, Zimbabwe, etc. If we are going to war with all countires in breach of UN resoltuions when are we going to attack Israel, who I believe are in breach of more than any other nation.
If there is one thing I have learned as I have gotten older it is that often it is not the truth or facts that matter, but rather peoples perception. Many non politically motivated people in this country have the perception that the government led us into the Gulf War for reasons they elected not to share with the country. Whether that is right or wrong does not alter the fact that it exists. Whichever side of the debate you are on you will not change peoples minds by spouting political dogma, and insulting your opponents, which is what several contrbutors to this thread have resorted to of late.
First of all I am still serving, and I actually took part in Gulf War II!! Secondly, while I voted in the last election it was neither for Labour or the Tories (or Lib Dems!). My comments are not politically motivated as part of an anti Blair platform or opinion.
I was 'uncomfortable' as a serving member of the armed forces with the rational for going to war. This country was 'sold' the notion (although many were against it - as shown by the march in London) on the basis of the existance of WMD, whereas the US was always in the game of regime change (which I believe is illegal under international law). It subsequently turned out that the case for WMD was false. While there is no proof, that I am aware of, that the government - the face and driving force of which is indeed Tony Blair - deliberately lied about it there was sufficient evidence in such enquiries that we have had (e.g Hutton) that the likes of Mr Campbell changed the language of some reports to strengthen the governments arguements.
As to whether or not it was a legal war, recent revelations from the attorney general would suggest that the matter was the subject of interpretation - there was no black and white answer. That was part of the reason why the UK government was eager to obtain a further UN resolution!
When pressed on the matter of the reasons for going to war the standard answer from Labour politicians (this is not a political dig at Labour - they are the party in power!!) is 'Would you rather that Saddam was still in power...?' and other such comments. This avoids answering the question, and smacks of the ends justifing the means. If we are going to sally forth and remove all dictators and despots from the world, stop the death of innocents, etc, why are we not in Sudan, Zimbabwe, etc. If we are going to war with all countires in breach of UN resoltuions when are we going to attack Israel, who I believe are in breach of more than any other nation.
If there is one thing I have learned as I have gotten older it is that often it is not the truth or facts that matter, but rather peoples perception. Many non politically motivated people in this country have the perception that the government led us into the Gulf War for reasons they elected not to share with the country. Whether that is right or wrong does not alter the fact that it exists. Whichever side of the debate you are on you will not change peoples minds by spouting political dogma, and insulting your opponents, which is what several contrbutors to this thread have resorted to of late.
Thread Starter
A snippet from the 21 July 2002 Downing St memo:
US views of international law vary from that of the UK and the international community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law. But regime change could result from action that is otherwise lawful. We would regard the use of force against Iraq, or any other state, as lawful if exercised in the right of individual or collective self-defence, if carried out to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, or authorised by the UN Security Council. A detailed consideration of the legal issues, prepared earlier this year, is at Annex A. The legal position would depend on the precise circumstances at the time. Legal bases for an invasion of Iraq are in principle conceivable in both the first two instances but would be difficult to establish because of, for example, the tests of immediacy and proportionality. Further legal advice would be needed on this point.
OK then, reasons for Bliar to go to war:
1. Individual or collective self-defence? NO
2. To avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe? NO
3. Authorised by the UN Security Council? NO
I too was uneasy about the involvement of the UK, but one follows lawful orders in the military.
US views of international law vary from that of the UK and the international community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law. But regime change could result from action that is otherwise lawful. We would regard the use of force against Iraq, or any other state, as lawful if exercised in the right of individual or collective self-defence, if carried out to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, or authorised by the UN Security Council. A detailed consideration of the legal issues, prepared earlier this year, is at Annex A. The legal position would depend on the precise circumstances at the time. Legal bases for an invasion of Iraq are in principle conceivable in both the first two instances but would be difficult to establish because of, for example, the tests of immediacy and proportionality. Further legal advice would be needed on this point.
OK then, reasons for Bliar to go to war:
1. Individual or collective self-defence? NO
2. To avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe? NO
3. Authorised by the UN Security Council? NO
I too was uneasy about the involvement of the UK, but one follows lawful orders in the military.
I'matightbastard
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this is not a war in reality. No rationing, no national mobilzations, no conscriptions, no conversion of national industries to war time production of weapons
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this is not a war in reality. No rationing, no national mobilzations, no conscriptions, no conversion of national industries to war time production of weapons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this is not a war in reality. No rationing, no national mobilzations, no conscriptions, no conversion of national industries to war time production of weapons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yet
Dubya can do what he wishes, as far as the US people will allow.
For the UK it is a different matter. If Bliar attempted to follow suit - Iran for example - then there would be national uproar at a level never witnessed before in the UK....certainly not since 1642!
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BillHicksRules
More people voted for Blair than either Howard OR Kennedy, (though not combined, obviously) that's what I was getting at, as I'm sure you're aware - this was in response to MOSTAFA pointing out correctly that Blair 'only' got 37% of the vote – 64%didn't vote for him. like I say, enjoy the next five years and chill – you don’t want to burn out too soon!
Now we've been over this before, and setting aside people's views over GW2
More than 60% of those who voted voted for left of centrer parties, the right (including the BNP and UKIP) got about 40%
More people voted for Blair than either Howard OR Kennedy, (though not combined, obviously) that's what I was getting at, as I'm sure you're aware - this was in response to MOSTAFA pointing out correctly that Blair 'only' got 37% of the vote – 64%didn't vote for him. like I say, enjoy the next five years and chill – you don’t want to burn out too soon!
Now we've been over this before, and setting aside people's views over GW2
More than 60% of those who voted voted for left of centrer parties, the right (including the BNP and UKIP) got about 40%
Thread Starter
Stupid Boy, it was 22 years before the French discovered lager.......
I see that the jury in the Michael Jackson case have acquitted him, having seen through the lies.
Would that the British electorate had been as perceptive at the time of the last election...
I see that the jury in the Michael Jackson case have acquitted him, having seen through the lies.
Would that the British electorate had been as perceptive at the time of the last election...
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More people voted for Blair than either Howard OR Kennedy, (though not combined, obviously) that's what I was getting at, as I'm sure you're aware - this was in response to MOSTAFA pointing out correctly that Blair 'only' got 37% of the vote – 64%didn't vote for him. like I say, enjoy the next five years and chill – you don’t want to burn out too soon!
There is a crisis in representative democracy simmering away that is likely to manifest itself initially during the G8 summit and at various stages thereafter.
Bliar pretends to have "listened" and puts his chum Adonis in charge of education (anyone who believes Ruth Kelly is in charge is drunk) and puts a Labour donor-crony in charge of MoD procurement. The Department for Constitutional Affairs is contemptibly headed by another patronage appointee and crony, Charles Falconer.
Next year are more local elections. Labour will take another pounding, particularly after council tax revaluation. In Scotland, Labour are doing badly and it is only good fortune for them that the SNP are also doing poorly. Scotland may see a Lib Dem First Minister in 2007! Add to that the restive Labour majority of 67, likely to be tested with ID cards (and associated civil disobedience)and other Bliar/Birt/McKinsey "reforms" and it is difficult to see how Bliar is anything other than a liability.
If he did follow Dubya next door into Iran/Syria, this country would see widespread civil disobedience and consciencous objection on the part of military personnel, particularly reservists that are now so crucial. I predict Bliar would be toppled after demonstrations similar to the Ukraine "orange revolution". The one factor that makes an Iran/Syria venture highly unlikely is the politico-military blundering that has tied down troops in Iraq and has made a return to Afghanistan (5000 NATO ARRC Brits) necessary.