Britain has not fought just war since 1945, says Jeremy Corbyn, prompting anger from veterans

by Guest Sat May 13, 2017 10:28 am

First topic message reminder :

Britain has not fought a just conflict since the Second World War, Jeremy Corbyn has said, insisting he would only authorise military action as a "genuine last resort".

Mr Corbyn refused to commit to sending British troops to defend a Nato ally which was under attack, saying he would seek economic and diplomatic solutions to any crisis. Mr Corbyn, who is a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, raised questions about the future of the Trident nuclear deterrent, saying it would be included in a defence review if Labour wins the election.

A Labour MP pointed to how Mr Corbyn had supported the IRA when it was bombing mainland Britain in the 1980s, saying: "He's just anti-western military interventions."

The Labour leader’s comments were also attacked by Rob Gray, an Army veteran who was jeered for challenging Mr Corbyn over his views on prosecuting veterans in Northern Ireland this week.
Mr Gray said: “The man’s an idiot. Jeremy Corbyn is an insult to friends of mine who died in Northern Ireland because he will not support British troops.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/12/britain-has-not-fought-just-war-since-1945-says-jeremy-corbyn/

Its no wonder that people are so put off by this clown

by Guest Tue May 16, 2017 1:47 pm

nicko wrote:My mates and I had no interest in the politics of the situation, we never gave them a thought. The only interest we had was staying alive, and if that ment killing the enemy, so be it !!

And that nicko, is exactly my point. You were killing people and trying to stop yourselves being killed and you didn't even know why. You killed because you were told someone was the bad guy, you didn't know what they were fighting for, you didn't know that the side you were in was propping up a leader who was totally corrupt and you didn't care because you were been paid for it and were willing to do what your masters told you. in other words you left your brains at the door and your morals in the cupboard to follow orders.

by Guest Tue May 16, 2017 2:52 pm

sassy wrote:
nicko wrote:My mates and I had no interest in the politics of the situation, we never gave them a thought. The only interest we had was staying alive, and if that ment killing the enemy, so be it !!

And that nicko, is exactly my point. You were killing people and trying to stop yourselves being killed and you didn't even know why. You killed because you were told someone was the bad guy, you didn't know what they were fighting for, you didn't know that the side you were in was propping up a leader who was totally corrupt and you didn't care because you were been paid for it and were willing to do what your masters told you. in other words you left your brains at the door and your morals in the cupboard to follow orders.

Well its a no brainer is it not?
The Vietcong and North Vietnamese tried to force their will upon the entire Vietnamese and to this day since the end of that conflict the people have been denied self determination

That is wrong in any book

A leader maybe corrupt but that is no excuse to then replace with something as corrupt which also then denies the people countless civil rights. The country under democracy could have had countless peaceful demonstrations against the corrupt leader. Why was there not continuous majority protests in support of the North? So you back invading a nation with a corrupt leader, but not a mass murderer in Saddam Hussein.

Wow

This is why the Far left support the forcing of their communist beliefs onto those who do not want them, to them claim its morally right.

Wow

Again if the British had fought this war, just like with where they defeated the communists in Malaysia, they would have defeated this insurgency and invasion. The British knew how to win over hearts and minds, which the Americans sadly lacked. It was how the US conducted the war to how and why we condemn. Its never wrong to defend the self determination of people. How you also ignore the atrocities committed by the Vietcong and North Vietnamese is mind boggling ignorant

Nicko was justified to defend against people forcing their will on the rest and its clear he has far better morals and ethics than you.

That is a no brainer

by Guest Tue May 16, 2017 3:57 pm

Christ on a bike, you really are an ignorant know nothing pretending to be informed. Sounds like you need to read the link I gave Nicko. Utterly pathetic.

by eddie Tue May 16, 2017 3:59 pm

sassy wrote:
nicko wrote:My mates and I had no interest in the politics of the situation, we never gave them a thought. The only interest we had was staying alive, and if that ment killing the enemy, so be it !!

And that nicko, is exactly my point. You were killing people and trying to stop yourselves being killed and you didn't even know why. You killed because you were told someone was the bad guy, you didn't know what they were fighting for, you didn't know that the side you were in was propping up a leader who was totally corrupt and you didn't care because you were been paid for it and were willing to do what your masters told you. in other words you left your brains at the door and your morals in the cupboard to follow orders.

Though said harshly, this post is nonetheless true in my opinion.
The only people who know the real reasons why we go to war are the ones making the money i.e. the ones in power.

by Guest Tue May 16, 2017 4:00 pm

sassy wrote:Christ on a bike, you really are an ignorant know nothing pretending to be informed. Sounds like you need to read the link I gave Nicko. Utterly pathetic.

So all you can do is be abusive.

Did Nicko go to defend the rights of the Vietnamese?

Neither the US or the North Vietnamese were right in this war, but claiming Aussies helping to defend people is wrong, is absurd.

What rights have they had under the Communists?

Diem regime might be terrible but the totalitarian regime from the North, contrary to popular belief, did not get any better if not even worse. They had arrested, tortured and executed thousands of their own people who were all of a sudden labelled as “land lords” during their “land reform” and “re-education” programs from 1953 to 1956 – just before they decided to “liberate” the South. Ironically, many of the so-called “cruel and barbaric landlords” were actively supporting them in their war against the French.

by eddie Tue May 16, 2017 4:01 pm

eddie wrote:
sassy wrote:
nicko wrote:My mates and I had no interest in the politics of the situation, we never gave them a thought. The only interest we had was staying alive, and if that ment killing the enemy, so be it !!

And that nicko, is exactly my point. You were killing people and trying to stop yourselves being killed and you didn't even know why. You killed because you were told someone was the bad guy, you didn't know what they were fighting for, you didn't know that the side you were in was propping up a leader who was totally corrupt and you didn't care because you were been paid for it and were willing to do what your masters told you. in other words you left your brains at the door and your morals in the cupboard to follow orders.

Though said harshly, this post is nonetheless true in my opinion.
The only people who know the real reasons why we go to war are the ones making the money i.e. the ones in power.

And might I add, this is a bitter pill for ex-soldiers to swallow so I don't think you're going to change nicko's mind.

by Guest Tue May 16, 2017 4:03 pm

eddie wrote:
eddie wrote:

Though said harshly, this post is nonetheless true in my opinion.
The only people who know the real reasons why we go to war are the ones making the money i.e. the ones in power.

And might I add, this is a bitter pill for ex-soldiers to swallow so I don't think you're going to change nicko's mind.

I think the above shows aptly how very naive people are on war and the cost of war that many soldiers give their lives for. I have shown many wars are just wars, and there is actually a simple test for this.

The Vietnam war was unjust from both sides.

I do not see the Aussie intervening after it had started as wrong and they conducted the war justly.

So what bitter pill?

Two women with no comprehension or experience of war?

Not being horrible, but that is the truth here.

by Guest Tue May 16, 2017 4:05 pm

Thorin wrote:
sassy wrote:Christ on a bike, you really are an ignorant know nothing pretending to be informed. Sounds like you need to read the link I gave Nicko. Utterly pathetic.

So all you can do is be abusive.

Did Nicko go to defend the rights of the Vietnamese?

Neither the US or the North Vietnamese were right in this war, but claiming Aussies helping to defend people is wrong, is absurd.

What rights have they had under the Communists?

Diem regime might be terrible but the totalitarian regime from the North, contrary to popular belief, did not get any better if not even worse. They had arrested, tortured and executed thousands of their own people who were all of a sudden labelled as “land lords” during their “land reform” and “re-education” programs from 1953 to 1956 – just before they decided to “liberate” the South. Ironically, many of the so-called “cruel and barbaric landlords” were actively supporting them in their war against the French.

You are truly the worst kind of ignorant.

Post World War II Vietnam

The causes of the Vietnam War trace their roots back to the end of World War II. A French colony, Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, & Cambodia) had been occupied by the Japanese during the war. In 1941, a Vietnamese nationalist movement, the Viet Minh, was formed by Ho Chi Minh to resist the occupiers. A communist, Ho Chi Minh waged a guerilla war against the Japanese with the support of the United States.

Near the end of the war, the Japanese began to promote Vietnamese nationalism and ultimately granted the country nominal independence. On August 14, 1945, Ho Chi Minh launched the August Revolution which effectively saw the Viet Minh take control of the country.

Following the Japanese defeat, the Allied Powers decided that the region should remain under French control. As France lacked the troops to retake the area, Nationalist Chinese forces occupied the north while the British landed in the south. Disarming the Japanese, the British used the surrendered weapons to rearm French forces that had been interned during the war. Under pressure from the Soviet Union, Ho Chi Minh sough to negotiate with the French who desired to retake possession of their colony. Their entrance into Vietnam was only permitted by the Viet Minh after assurances had been given that the country would gain independence as part of the French Union.

Discussions soon broke down between the two parties and in December 1946, the French shelled the city of Haiphong and forcibly reentered the capital, Hanoi.

These actions began a conflict between the French and the Viet Minh known as the First Indochina War. Fought mainly in North Vietnam, this conflict began as a low level, rural guerilla war as Viet Minh forces conducted hit and run attacks on the French.

In 1949, fighting escalated as Chinese communist forces reached the northern border of Vietnam and opened a pipeline of military supplies to the Viet Minh. Increasingly well-equipped, the Viet Minh began more direct engagement against the enemy and the conflict ended when the French were decisively defeated at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. The war was ultimately settled by the Geneva Accords of 1954, which temporarily partitioned the country at the 17th parallel, with the Viet Minh in control of the north and a non-communist state to be formed in the south under Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem. This division was to last until 1956, when national elections would be held to decide the future of the nation.
The Politics of American Involvement

Initially, the United States had little interest in Vietnam and Southeast Asia, however as it became clear that the post-World War II world would be dominated by the US and its allies and the Soviet Union and theirs, isolating communist movements took an increased importance. These concerns were ultimately formed into the doctrine of containment and domino theory. First spelled out 1947, containment identified that the goal of Communism was to spread to capitalist states and that the only way to stop it was to “contain” it within its present borders.

Springing from containment was the concept of domino theory which stated that if one state in a region were to fall to Communism, then the surrounding states would inevitably fall as well. These concepts were to dominate and guide US foreign policy for much of the Cold War.

In 1950, to combat the spread of Communism, the United States began supplying the French military in Vietnam with advisors and funding its efforts against the “red” Viet Minh. This aid nearly extended to direct intervention in 1954 when the use of American forces to relieve Dien Bien Phu was discussed at length. Indirect efforts continued in 1956, when advisors were provided to train the army of the new Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) with the goal of creating a force capable of resisting Communist aggression. Despite their best efforts, the quality of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) was to remain consistently poor throughout its existence.
The Diem Regime

A year after the Geneva Accords, Prime Minister Diem commenced a “Denounce the Communists” campaign in the south. Throughout the summer of 1955, communists and other opposition members were jailed and executed. In addition to attacking the communists, the Roman Catholic Diem assaulted Buddhist sects and organized crime, which further alienated the largely Buddhist Vietnamese people and eroded his support. In the course of his purges, it is estimated that Diem has up to 12,000 opponents executed and as many as 40,000 jailed. To further cement his power, Diem rigged a referendum on the future of the country in October 1955 and declared the formation of the Republic of Vietnam, with its capital at Saigon.

Despite this, the US actively supported the Diem regime as a buttress against Ho Chi Minh’s communist forces in the north. In 1957, a low-level guerrilla movement began to emerge in the south, conducted by Viet Minh units that had not returned north after the accords. Two years later, these groups successfully pressured Ho’s government into issuing a secret resolution calling for an armed struggle in the south. Military supplies began to flow into the south along the Ho Chi Minh Trail and the following year the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (Viet Cong) was formed to carry out the fight.
Failure and Deposing Diem

The situation in South Vietnam continued to deteriorate with corruption rife throughout the Diem government and the ARVN unable to effectively combat the Viet Cong. In 1961, the newly elected Kennedy Administration promised more aid and additional money, weapons, and supplies were sent with little effect. Discussions then began in Washington regarding the need to force a regime change in Saigon. This was accomplished on November 2, 1963, when the CIA aided a group of ARVN officers to overthrow and kill Diem. His death led to period of political instability that saw the rise and fall of a succession of military governments. To help deal with the post-coup chaos, Kennedy increased the number of US advisors in South Vietnam to 16,000.

With Kennedy's death later that same month, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson ascended to the presidency and reiterated the US' commitment to fighting communism in the region.

The Vietnam war escalation began with the Gulf of Tonkin incident. On August 2, 1964, USS Maddox, an American destroyer, was attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin by three North Vietnamese torpedo boats while conducting an intelligence mission. A second attack seemed have occurred two days later, though the reports were sketchy (It now appears that there was no second attack). This second “attack” led to US air strikes against North Vietnam and the passage of the Southeast Asia (Gulf of Tonkin) Resolution by Congress.

link already given.

Read and inform yourself.

by Guest Tue May 16, 2017 4:08 pm

So more immature abuse from what is clearly a Far Left extremist.

I have stated already that the Vietnam war was unjust from both sides and conducted unjustly

The point here is about Australian intervention when the war had started and that they conducted the war justly.

Now you can spam all you like, but atrocities were committed by both the US and the Vietcong/North Vietnamese.

I am happy to condemn both the US and the Vietnamese, but I wont condemn the Aussies, who fought justly.

You have to argue it was unjust and that they fought unjustly

To say you understand something when you can never argue this shows how brainwashed you are.

by Original Quill Tue May 16, 2017 4:44 pm

nicko wrote:"I WAS JUST THERE TO KILL BABIES" You don't have a fucking clue do you? I never killed any babies, In fact I recued 3 from burning houses.

Now Quill ,i'm going to tell you some truths about the VC who you think were "oppressed" and were treated badly by us. We were sent to a village whose inhabitants had complained they were being harassed by the VC who were demanding they fed them and were kidnapping young men and girls to fight with them. When we got to the Village it was burning and we found the Head Man who had complained about the VC, he was lying on the ground out side his burning house,his wife and teenage Daughter had been raped and shot.HE WAS LYING THERE WITH A BAMBOO SPEAR PINNING HIS LITTLE DAUGHTER TO HIM THROUGH THEIR STOMACHS !! We tracked them for two days, there were 6 of them, we killed them all.
You know fuck all about war and the men who had to fight it, rant over.

So they were brutal. And you were brutal. Including killing babies. War is hell...and it's so unnecessary. Those are verifiable statements.

But your antagonism toward the Viet Cong was simply you choosing sides, so you had a dog in the fight...but only in the fan club. Rise up above that and ask why you were there(?). Forget about the fan club...why was an Anglo soldier in the middle of an Asian jungle, killing fellow human beings? I know why the VC were there...they were fighting invaders in their homeland. You would do the same. But what were you doing there?

That's the basic premise of this thread. All of our wars (US and UK) have been invading someone else's homeland, and killing and raping their babies. You even admit it (above); you only hate my mentioning it.

by Guest Tue May 16, 2017 4:56 pm

Original Quill wrote:
nicko wrote:"I WAS JUST THERE TO KILL BABIES" You don't have a fucking clue do you? I never killed any babies, In fact I recued 3 from burning houses.

Now Quill ,i'm going to tell you some truths about the VC who you think were "oppressed" and were treated badly by us. We were sent to a village whose inhabitants had complained they were being harassed by the VC who were demanding they fed them and were kidnapping young men and girls to fight with them. When we got to the Village it was burning and we found the Head Man who had complained about the VC, he was lying on the ground out side his burning house,his wife and teenage Daughter had been raped and shot.HE WAS LYING THERE WITH A BAMBOO SPEAR PINNING HIS LITTLE DAUGHTER TO HIM THROUGH THEIR STOMACHS !! We tracked them for two days, there were 6 of them, we killed them all.
You know fuck all about war and the men who had to fight it, rant over.

So they were brutal. And you were brutal. Including killing babies. War is hell...and it's so unnecessary. Those are verifiable statements.

But your antagonism toward the Viet Cong was simply you choosing sides, so you had a dog in the fight...but only in the fan club. Rise up above that and ask why you were there(?). Forget about the fan club...why was an Anglo soldier in the middle of an Asian jungle, killing fellow human beings? I know why the VC were there...they were fighting invaders in their homeland. You would do the same. But what were you doing there?

That's the basic premise of this thread. All of our wars (US and UK) have been invading someone else's homeland, and killing and raping their babies. You even admit it (above); you only hate my mentioning it.

He stated he did not kill babies.

Why do you persist in trying to deliberately goad and upset Nicko here to something you have no experience of or understanding of combat or more so the horrors of war?

You seriously are acting like a child.

The Vietcong did commit countless atrocities. This is beyond dispute.

So we can add you being an apologist to communist war crimes now as well as being one of the worst revisionist of history going.

So the VC were in the South before the US even sent troops, as well as North Vietnamese.

You see more revisionist history.

So the Uk retaking the Falklands, is unjust, even though the Islands were invaded by the Argentinians against the peoples wishes.

This is why I do not take you seriously anymore, with the crap you continually come out with. You deny the self determination of the Falkland people, which is absurd, after they were invaded by the Argentinians

So intervention to help stop genocides in Bosnia and Kosovo to you is unjust, which means you wish for the genocide to go unchallenged.

Wow

It shows you have no idea what a Just war is of whether it is conducted justly

For example the Allies action to go to war in WW2 was just.

No side however conducted the war justly. So in this instance the it was a just war, that was fought unjustly.

I suggest you read up on the philosophy of Just war

The Just War Theory

The Just War Theory has been shaped over the centuries by historians and philosophers. However, the most systematic account of the Just War Theory was formulated by Saint Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologicae. According to the Just War Theory, the moral reality of war is divided into two parts. Wars are judged twice, first with reference to the reasons nations have for fighting and secondly, with reference to the means they adopt in the actual fighting. (Walzer, 21) The first judgment is referred to as jus ad bellum, or justice of war. The second judgment is referred to as jus in bello, or justice in war. Jus ad bellum provides guidelines for assessing whether a war is just or unjust while jus in bello outlines proper conduct in war. Jus ad bellum does not imply jus in bello. Likewise, jus in bello does not necessitate jus ad bellum. It is possible for a just war to be fought unjustly just as it is possible for an unjust war to be fought justly.

The principles of jus ad bellum are having a just cause, being declared by a proper authority, possessing the right intention, and having a reasonable chance of success. A war must meet all of these requirements to be regarded as a just war. The first and most important condition of jus ad bellum is having a just cause. This condition relies on what Saint Thomas Aquinas calls the Theory of Aggression. The Theory of Aggression can be summed up in six propositions:

1. There exists an international society of independent states.
2. This international society has a law that establishes the rights of its members—above all, the rights of territorial integrity and political sovereignty.
3. Any use of force or imminent threat of force by one state against the political sovereignty or territorial integrity of another constitutes aggression and is a criminal act.
4. Aggression justifies two kinds of violent response: a war of self-defense by the victim and a war of law enforcement by the victim and any other member of international society.
5. Nothing but aggression can justify war.
6. Once the aggressor state has been militarily repulsed, it can also be punished. (Walzer, 61)

From the Theory of Aggression it is clear that wars cannot be justly declared for political or religious beliefs, self interest, or aggrandizement. Only aggression towards the political sovereignty or territorial integrity of a nation can justify war. However, the tenet of self-defense can be interpreted to include preemptive strikes and cases of intervention.

The second condition of jus ad bellum is that the war must be declared by the proper authority. This authority resides in the sovereign power of a nation. The third provision asserts that a nation going to war must possess the right intention. The nation engaging in a just war should be waging war for the sake of justice and not out of self-interest. War should be waged to counter aggression. The fourth and final condition stipulates that a nation waging a just war must have a reasonable chance of success. These four tenets compose jus ad bellum, or justice of war. A war can only be deemed just if it meets all four tenets of jus ad bellum.

So many actions by the Brits were just in the conflicts I mentioned earlier.

Anyway:

The US may have lost the Vietnam war but in the long term, it crippled the Soviet Union and Chinese financially. Which led eventually to the collapse of the Soviet Union. US backing of the South allowed other Asian nations to grow and prosper thus denying the spread of Communism, which in this theater of Communist countries had some of the worst barbarism seen in the 20th century.

Former Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew argued that the U.S. involvement in Indochina had given other Southeast Asian countries time to consolidate and engage in economic growth, and therefore, stopped further communist spread.

by Raggamuffin Tue May 16, 2017 6:11 pm

Some of the posts about nicko are disgraceful. People are entitled to their opinion but to pretty much tell someone they were stupid and should be ashamed is really not on. You should get off your high horses.

by HoratioTarr Tue May 16, 2017 6:19 pm

sassy wrote:
nicko wrote:My mates and I had no interest in the politics of the situation, we never gave them a thought. The only interest we had was staying alive, and if that ment killing the enemy, so be it !!

And that nicko, is exactly my point. You were killing people and trying to stop yourselves being killed and you didn't even know why. You killed because you were told someone was the bad guy, you didn't know what they were fighting for, you didn't know that the side you were in was propping up a leader who was totally corrupt and you didn't care because you were been paid for it and were willing to do what your masters told you. in other words you left your brains at the door and your morals in the cupboard to follow orders.

Two world wars were fought in just that way in order to enable you to have the freedom to speak your mind on here.

by Guest Tue May 16, 2017 6:47 pm

+1

For both Rags and Horatio.

by Original Quill Tue May 16, 2017 7:22 pm

by Guest Tue May 16, 2017 7:28 pm

Original Quill wrote:

Britain has not fought just war since 1945, says Jeremy Corbyn, prompting anger from veterans - Page 2 02fcf9ca0cfecce4b79f2317c4ba2406

by nicko Tue May 16, 2017 8:08 pm

People sleep safely in their beds at night knowing that rough men are prepared to do violence on their behalf.

by Victorismyhero Tue May 16, 2017 8:59 pm

have a

by Original Quill Wed May 17, 2017 2:59 am

nicko wrote:People sleep safely in their beds at night knowing that rough men are prepared to do violence on their behalf.

The UK hasn't been invaded since 1792. I guess these "rough men" who defend the shores of Britain are overweight and bored to tears. Razz

by Guest Wed May 17, 2017 3:07 am

Original Quill wrote:
nicko wrote:People sleep safely in their beds at night knowing that rough men are prepared to do violence on their behalf.

The UK hasn't been invaded since 1792. I guess these "rough men" who defend the shores of Britain are overweight and bored to tears.

Its territories have and you fail to understand the following on Just wars, in defending territories that have been invaded or attacked through aggression.

No American territory was invaded in WW2.

I would love for you to go public with your view of those who have served.

I imagine you would go into hiding, which is what gutless people do who are gobby behind their PC's

by nicko Wed May 17, 2017 6:11 am

SAS,? OVERWEIGHT ? IDIOT.

by Ben Reilly Wed May 17, 2017 6:34 am

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
nicko wrote:People sleep safely in their beds at night knowing that rough men are prepared to do violence on their behalf.

The UK hasn't been invaded since 1792. I guess these "rough men" who defend the shores of Britain are overweight and bored to tears.

Its territories have and you fail to understand the following on Just wars, in defending territories that have been invaded or attacked through aggression.

No American territory was invaded in WW2.

I would love for you to go public with your view of those who have served.

I imagine you would go into hiding, which is what gutless people do who are gobby behind their PC's

Pearl Harbor?

by Guest Wed May 17, 2017 9:07 am

Ben Reilly wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Its territories have and you fail to understand the following on Just wars, in defending territories that have been invaded or attacked through aggression.

No American territory was invaded in WW2.

I would love for you to go public with your view of those who have served.

I imagine you would go into hiding, which is what gutless people do who are gobby behind their PC's

Pearl Harbor?

It was attacked, not invaded Ben, but again this would make it just for the US to got to war in defence of such an aggression against its forces and territory.

by Original Quill Wed May 17, 2017 4:33 pm

Thorin wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:

Pearl Harbor?

It was attacked, not invaded Ben, but again this would make it just for the US to got to war in defence of such an aggression against its forces and territory.

Britain has not fought just war since 1945, says Jeremy Corbyn, prompting anger from veterans - Page 2 Double-Fancy

Nice dance, didge.

by Guest Wed May 17, 2017 4:35 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

It was attacked, not invaded Ben, but again this would make it just for the US to got to war in defence of such an aggression against its forces and territory.

Nice dance, didge.

I am a fab dancer thanks

Though its you that has been dancing to the revisionist hymn.

by Original Quill Wed May 17, 2017 4:41 pm

Thorin wrote:He stated he did not kill babies.

You can't generalize from specifics. The reference is to a cause, not a specific person.

The South Vietnamese certainly did kill babies, as did many of those who helped them.

Britain has not fought just war since 1945, says Jeremy Corbyn, prompting anger from veterans - Page 2 Ut-vietnam-girl

Britain has not fought just war since 1945, says Jeremy Corbyn, prompting anger from veterans - Page 2 Ut-vietnam-girl

If nicko didn't kill children (and I take him at his word), he nevertheless freed up another soldier to kill children.

by Guest Wed May 17, 2017 4:45 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:He stated he did not kill babies.

You can't generalize from specifics. The reference is to a cause, not a specific person.

The South Vietnamese certainly did kill babies, as did many of those who helped them.

If nicko didn't kill children (and I take him at his word), he nevertheless freed up another soldier to kill children.

Poor terminology, as if saying he still pulled the trigger.

He cannot be responsible for what individual or units committed in atrocities

He defended villages, where as seen, when they could not those villagers suffered with their lives.

So you want to play the baby killing card, when he was defending them from death.

Shows your ethics are all over the shot

So by your reasoning, that every time you eat, you are directly responsible for all starving children in the world, as you are taking up food they could have.

That is how absurd your claim is

by eddie Wed May 17, 2017 4:58 pm

I think retracting that statement may be wise really Quill. It wasn't a very nice thing to say.
Whether or not I believe in war I wouldn't say that to an ex-military as it's not a fair statement to make.

by Original Quill Wed May 17, 2017 5:50 pm

eddie wrote:I think retracting that statement may be wise really Quill. It wasn't a very nice thing to say.
Whether or not I believe in war I wouldn't say that to an ex-military as it's not a fair statement to make.

This is not about etiquette, eds. This is about wrong turns, and a whole world gone wrong. I obviously don't cotton to the chest-thumping, self-congratulation that we heap on our military. Rather, I weep for the babies.

Being a mother, you would do well to consider it...but for the fact that your country is not where these things happen, you would be right in the middle.

If this is not the forum for free speech, there is always another.

by Guest Wed May 17, 2017 5:53 pm

Original Quill wrote:
eddie wrote:I think retracting that statement may be wise really Quill. It wasn't a very nice thing to say.
Whether or not I believe in war I wouldn't say that to an ex-military as it's not a fair statement to make.

This is not about etiquette, eds. This is about wrong turns, and a whole world gone wrong. I obviously don't cotton to the chest-thumping, self-congratulation that we heap on our military. Rather, I weep for the babies.

Being a mother, you would do well to consider it...but for the fact that your country is not where these things happen, you would be right in the middle.

If this is not the forum for free speech, there is always another.

Do you weep for the millions of babies that die each year from famine, disease and murder?

The fact you cannot grasp is that he was looking to protect and defend life, from those who had no respect for life. That sometimes requires having to take life also, to protect innocent life.

What you fail to grasp is what is the greater need.

I don;t think you weep for babies at all, you use then insidiously politically to garner a poor unethical point

by eddie Wed May 17, 2017 5:55 pm

Original Quill wrote:
eddie wrote:I think retracting that statement may be wise really Quill. It wasn't a very nice thing to say.
Whether or not I believe in war I wouldn't say that to an ex-military as it's not a fair statement to make.

This is not about etiquette, eds. This is about wrong turns, and a whole world gone wrong. I obviously don't cotton to the chest-thumping, self-congratulation that we heap on our military. Rather, I weep for the babies.

Being a mother, you would do well to consider it...but for the fact that your country is not where these things happen, you would be right in the middle.

If this is not the forum for free speech, there is always another.

Fair enough. You have your right to say what you feel and I do agree with you completely on this issue, I always have.

Just thought it was a little bit harsh to say that to nicko but it's your prerogative.

by nicko Wed May 17, 2017 6:00 pm

These an old question that is often asked for cowards, " if an enemy was raping you Mother or your Sister and you had a Gun would you use it"

by Original Quill Wed May 17, 2017 6:04 pm

I have, and will again stand up for nicko on other issues, eds. This is not personal, but political. Frankly, I know he takes what I say quite seriously.

I realize the gravity of what I am saying, and I take full credit for it. These are things that need to be expressed, in any political setting. I don't know how to state it more succinctly...they are killing babies in Syria, just as they were in Iraq, in Viet Nam, in Nicaragua and in Korea.

It's about killing babies...saluting veterans pales in comparison. I'm not the iconoclast here...those who kill babies are the iconoclasts.

by Guest Wed May 17, 2017 6:10 pm

Original Quill wrote:I have, and will again stand up for nicko on other issues, eds. This is not personal, but political. Frankly, I know he takes what I say quite seriously.

I realize the gravity of what I am saying, and I take full credit for it. These are things that need to be expressed, in any political setting. I don't know how to state it more succinctly...they are killing babies in Syria, just as they were in Iraq, in Viet Nam, in Nicaragua and in Korea.

It's about killing babies...saluting veterans pales in comparison. I'm not the iconoclast here...those who kill babies are the iconoclasts.

Absurd reasoning again
It is Assad and ISIS and others killing thousands of babies.
What is blatantly missed here is the intent.
Assad and ISIS do not care if they kill babies and neither do they try to avoid killing babies.

Western intervention actually tries to prevent the killing of innocent life in Syria.

The problem with your view is that you place a moral equivalency when the western intervention is morally miles above that of Assad and ISIS, as its trying to stop the continued violence by both groups.

Hence your view would continue to allow the suffering and mass killing of babies to continue, by the west and others doing nothing.

That is morally reprehensible.

by Raggamuffin Wed May 17, 2017 6:42 pm

Quill, FFS change the record about "killing babies".

by Original Quill Wed May 17, 2017 6:47 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, FFS change the record about "killing babies".

No! It's real and not just some popular song.

Tell you what. Whey they've stopped holding these 3rd-world wars...when they've stopped killing the babies, then I'll change the record.

by Guest Wed May 17, 2017 6:48 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, FFS change the record about "killing babies".

No! It's real and not just some popular song.

Tell you what. Whey they've stopped holding these 3rd-world wars...when they've stopped killing the babies, then I'll change the record.

But your view of inaction actually increases the number of babies being killed, as well as the other hundreds of thousands in Syria killed. Plus those maimed and injured and 9 million displaced which has seen and caused problems spreading into Europe and the Middle East.

Bravo on that failed strategy

by Raggamuffin Wed May 17, 2017 6:51 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, FFS change the record about "killing babies".

No! It's real and not just some popular song.

Tell you what. Whey they've stopped holding these 3rd-world wars...when they've stopped killing the babies, then I'll change the record.

It's not just babies which die in war is it? What about all the people who aren't babies, including soldiers?

by Guest Wed May 17, 2017 7:04 pm

Britain has not fought just war since 1945, says Jeremy Corbyn, prompting anger from veterans - Page 2 Corbyn-isis

Jeremy Corbyn has recently declared that now is the time to negotiate with ISIS. Upon hearing this news I quickly called up my old friend Dr. Emmett Brown and travelled into the future in his 1985 DeLorean and transcribed the future negotiation between the UK Labour Party and ISIS. Here it is.

Corbyn: Gentlemen, thank you for accepting our invitation for negotiations, I believe that we can reach a common understanding that will produce a peaceful outcome for all of us.

ISIS: Allahu ackbar

Corbyn: Yes, Allahu ackbar indeed. Shall we begin?

ISIS: Yes. These are our demands:

[*]The infidels shall convert to Islam or die.

[*]An Islamic caliphate to rule all of Europe.

Corbyn: …. aaaaand?

ISIS: …

Corbyn: Very well, do you believe there is any way we can compromise on this demand?

ISIS: …

Corbyn: OK, we have a number of racist people in our country who feel that Islam is not the best choice for a religion… I know racist right? Anyway, they may be less inclined to..

ISIS: (slowly unsheathes a large knife)

Corbyn: Oh woah woah ok… I’ll see what I can do.

ISIS: (pulls out large knife and points it at Corbyn)

Corbyn: OK OK, agreed. … wait… if someone chooses not to convert what if we can agree on a kind of… compensation.

ISIS: (talks amongst themselves) … compensation? Money? He’s talking about Jizya. Ahh yes Jizya!

(to Corbyn) we may consider this Jizya.

Corbyn: Ah great I see we’re making great progress.

ISIS: But only if…

Corbyn: … if what?

ISIS: Our second demand is met.

Corbyn: You mean.. the uh… European-wide Islamic Sharia enforced caliphate?

ISIS: Yes.

Corbyn: Oh yes of course. Anyone who doesn’t agree to this is a racist Islamophobe. Wait a second, why did you bring large knives into the negotiating room?

ISIS: ….

Corbyn: Never mind, let’s proceed. So far we agreed to the following terms:

We give ISIS to Europe to rule
We all convert to Islam
Those who do not convert will pay a “Jizya” based on a percentage of their income.

Did we discuss a percentage yet?

ISIS: 100%

Corbyn: I’m sorry I didn’t quite catch th…

ISIS: (Brandishes knife)

Corbyn: One hundred percent.

OK. So we are in agreement. We have a solid arrangement here and if anyone disagrees they are a racist Islamophobe.

(All parties sign agreement)

Excellent work gentlemen. By tomorrow, we will all be Shi’ite Muslims!

(awkward silence)

Oh crap.

(ISIS decapitates Corbyn)

by eddie Wed May 17, 2017 7:28 pm

Hahahahaha that was funny.

by Original Quill Wed May 17, 2017 7:42 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

No! It's real and not just some popular song.

Tell you what. Whey they've stopped holding these 3rd-world wars...when they've stopped killing the babies, then I'll change the record.

It's not just babies which die in war is it? What about all the people who aren't babies, including soldiers?

No, you're right...it's a metaphor. That's why I chide that you don't generalize from specifics. But it's a metaphor that is closer to the truth than anything. The point is that they are the innocents that suffer in these regional conflicts.

When a big power decides to enter the affray, they don't increase the justice...they increase the deaths. The big powers don't ever correct things, they just lend more firepower, and hence I say: they kill more babies.

I have practiced as much conflict resolution as I have practiced law. I've written extensively about mediation and arbitration. There are three requirements to conflict resolution (I call it the three ayes): any resolution must be (1) internal, (2) it must be inclusive and (3) it must be integrative.

What is happening with the big powers' interference is, it is not internal. A big power comes in, kicks ass, and no resolution it achieved. Why? The big power is not from within. He's an outsider, with interests of his own. Even if it's to get some peace and quiet (which didge continually argues), peace and quiet is not congruent with what the disputing parties want (else there would not have been a conflict). Any resolution has to be internal.

Any mother has experienced this. She enters the affray between two children, wanting only peace and quiet. But she's motivated by the wrong thing. The kids must settle the dispute themselves. The theory of internalization is so fundamental that it operates on the simplest levels, even in the family unit.

I won't even discuss the other two 'I's...but trust me, they won't work if you don't start out with the internal nucleus to begin with.

by Guest Wed May 17, 2017 7:43 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

No! It's real and not just some popular song.

Tell you what. Whey they've stopped holding these 3rd-world wars...when they've stopped killing the babies, then I'll change the record.

But your view of inaction actually increases the number of babies being killed, as well as the other hundreds of thousands in Syria killed. Plus those maimed and injured and 9 million displaced which has seen and caused problems spreading into Europe and the Middle East.

Bravo on that failed strategy

by eddie Wed May 17, 2017 7:44 pm

That's a good post Quill and I agree.

by Original Quill Wed May 17, 2017 7:51 pm

eddie wrote:That's a good post Quill and I agree.

Thank you. It's not as if I am crying Oh the babies...oh the babies, and not doing something about it. I come from a long history of dealing with conflict resolution. I don't always get it right, but I know when it's wrong.

And these guys (big powers) don't know what they are doing.

by Guest Wed May 17, 2017 7:51 pm

eddie wrote:That's a good post Quill and I agree.

But how is it good?

What has it actually reasoned?

We have seen countless genocides that have continued because nobody has got involved and were only stopped through later intervention. His view would simple allow the mass murder to continue and even see ethnic groups completely disappear. It has even happened in the colonization of the America's.

So his view is completely absurd and stands back and allows people to continually suffer.

What you have to weigh up is the potential of suffering here and what the continued inaction will cause.

Just look at how the Syrian conflict which had no inaction from the west for the first view years, saw the problems spread out into other countries having to cope with millions of displaced people. This has led to heightened tension and problems in European countries. If earlier intervention had happened. Its more probable Assad would have collapsed and ISIS soon after. Would we have seen the refugee influx and the mass deaths of hundreds of thousands we now see.

The worst part of the argument that Quill makes, is his false equivalency between those who actively seek to murder innocents to those who look to prevent the loss of innocent life

by eddie Wed May 17, 2017 7:56 pm

This bit:

What is happening with the big powers' interference is, it is not internal. A big power comes in, kicks ass, and no resolution it achieved. Why? The big power is not from within. He's an outsider, with interests of his own. Even if it's to get some peace and quiet (which didge continually argues), peace and quiet is not congruent with what the disputing parties want (else there would not have been a conflict). Any resolution has to be internal.

Any mother has experienced this. She enters the affray between two children, wanting only peace and quiet. But she's motivated by the wrong thing. The kids must settle the dispute themselves. The theory of internalization is so fundamental that it operates on the simplest levels, even in the family unit.

I won't even discuss the other two 'I's...but trust me, they won't work if you don't start out with the internal nucleus to begin with.

by Original Quill Wed May 17, 2017 8:02 pm

Oh, it (the three 'i's) works. When you are able to successfully resolve a conflict, you achieve what I call subscription. That is a place where the disputing parties want the resolution more than they want the conflict.

The point is that you don't achieve subscription by simply downplaying the conflict. Keep in mind, the conflicting parties are already in a state of conflict. If, pre-resolution, the conflict wasn't preferable, it wouldn't have occurred. You've got to deal with the issues, and that means internally. Conflict only begets more conflict...and builds the resentment, as we've seen in the middle east.

The 'peace and quiet' motive is a dead-bang loser.

by Guest Wed May 17, 2017 8:03 pm

eddie wrote:This bit:

What is happening with the big powers' interference is, it is not internal. A big power comes in, kicks ass, and no resolution it achieved. Why? The big power is not from within. He's an outsider, with interests of his own. Even if it's to get some peace and quiet (which didge continually argues), peace and quiet is not congruent with what the disputing parties want (else there would not have been a conflict). Any resolution has to be internal.

Any mother has experienced this. She enters the affray between two children, wanting only peace and quiet. But she's motivated by the wrong thing. The kids must settle the dispute themselves. The theory of internalization is so fundamental that it operates on the simplest levels, even in the family unit.

I won't even discuss the other two 'I's...but trust me, they won't work if you don't start out with the internal nucleus to begin with.

But by the above, if we do not step in, people can and do die.
So if nobody should step in what is the point of having a criminal system and Police to protect and serve you?
The false premise of the above is that the mother is doing this for her sake, the failing of Quill's whole argument. She will often do so to prevent harm to either side and at the extreme end by saving a life.

To say the mother is stepping in preventing a stabbing is based off her needs is both mind numbingly stupid and holds the poorest view on how and why the west has stepped into many conflict to save lives.

So again you have the problem that Quill wrong sees intervention from his own poor view point and not of that of looking to the bigger picture of actually bring about peace and often armed force is required to take on those aggressors who cannot be reasoned with. Its about weighing up the cost of life through inaction and action, where constantly Quill stance based off his false premise would see far more die with his view.

Based on his premise, if we had allowed the Germans to get on with their dispute with the Jews in WW2, the Jews of Europe would be extinct.

His view is a poor philosophy and is actually very selfish. It seeks to help people based upon the boundaries of one set of imaginary lines but not to help others. If you believing in stepping into prevent the loss of lie, then you cannot be against this for where others have been aggressively attacked and even more so when the intent is to wipe out a people

by Raggamuffin Wed May 17, 2017 8:19 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not just babies which die in war is it? What about all the people who aren't babies, including soldiers?

No, you're right...it's a metaphor. That's why I chide that you don't generalize from specifics. But it's a metaphor that is closer to the truth than anything. The point is that they are the innocents that suffer in these regional conflicts.

When a big power decides to enter the affray, they don't increase the justice...they increase the deaths. The big powers don't ever correct things, they just lend more firepower, and hence I say: they kill more babies.

I have practiced as much conflict resolution as I have practiced law. I've written extensively about mediation and arbitration. There are three requirements to conflict resolution (I call it the three ayes): any resolution must be (1) internal, (2) it must be inclusive and (3) it must be integrative.

What is happening with the big powers' interference is, it is not internal. A big power comes in, kicks ass, and no resolution it achieved. Why? The big power is not from within. He's an outsider, with interests of his own. Even if it's to get some peace and quiet (which didge continually argues), peace and quiet is not congruent with what the disputing parties want (else there would not have been a conflict). Any resolution has to be internal.

Any mother has experienced this. She enters the affray between two children, wanting only peace and quiet. But she's motivated by the wrong thing. The kids must settle the dispute themselves. The theory of internalization is so fundamental that it operates on the simplest levels, even in the family unit.

I won't even discuss the other two 'I's...but trust me, they won't work if you don't start out with the internal nucleus to begin with.

I just think you're being a bit cruel to nicko, as was Sassy. What is the point of chiding him for "killing babies", or enabling other to "kill babies" after all this time? He fought in a war, and he did what he thought was right. I don't think you or Sassy are entitled to judge him or to reprimand him from the comfort of your own homes.

by Original Quill Thu May 18, 2017 5:56 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

No, you're right...it's a metaphor. That's why I chide that you don't generalize from specifics. But it's a metaphor that is closer to the truth than anything. The point is that they are the innocents that suffer in these regional conflicts.

When a big power decides to enter the affray, they don't increase the justice...they increase the deaths. The big powers don't ever correct things, they just lend more firepower, and hence I say: they kill more babies.

I have practiced as much conflict resolution as I have practiced law. I've written extensively about mediation and arbitration. There are three requirements to conflict resolution (I call it the three ayes): any resolution must be (1) internal, (2) it must be inclusive and (3) it must be integrative.

What is happening with the big powers' interference is, it is not internal. A big power comes in, kicks ass, and no resolution it achieved. Why? The big power is not from within. He's an outsider, with interests of his own. Even if it's to get some peace and quiet (which didge continually argues), peace and quiet is not congruent with what the disputing parties want (else there would not have been a conflict). Any resolution has to be internal.

Any mother has experienced this. She enters the affray between two children, wanting only peace and quiet. But she's motivated by the wrong thing. The kids must settle the dispute themselves. The theory of internalization is so fundamental that it operates on the simplest levels, even in the family unit.

I won't even discuss the other two 'I's...but trust me, they won't work if you don't start out with the internal nucleus to begin with.

I just think you're being a bit cruel to nicko, as was Sassy. What is the point of chiding him for "killing babies", or enabling other to "kill babies" after all this time? He fought in a war, and he did what he thought was right. I don't think you or Sassy are entitled to judge him or to reprimand him from the comfort of your own homes.

I'm really quite fond of nicko. Unfortunately, he is caught up in a sirocco that is still blowing. War is not popular these days, and so warriors are easily made villains.

I think you have to grasp the language of metaphor, and the abstractions to which they relate. As I've said, you can't generalize from specifics. So any one individual is as likely as not to be the one causing the problems. But, the metaphor has a reason...and lots of babies get killed in these wars. Someone is doing it.

by Sponsored content