Thedelldays Posted 19 November, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 November, 2009 It's because I have never fired a rifle in anger Delldays. I will officically retract the statement the first time I see you defending your point of view on the subject without simply claiming 'first hand experience' as evidence beyond any doubt. you are wrong as you usually try to have a dig He obviously has some sense, not too much though seeing as he signed up in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 19 November, 2009 Share Posted 19 November, 2009 If that were true, things might be slightly easier. Unfortunately, the Afghan campaign, particularly in Helmand, is directed and orchestrated from South Waziristan, and you'll even find 'mainland' Pakistanis in among the Taliban fighters. And it's far, far more than a few 'small bands'. This is why the Americans spend so much time and effort hitting the Taliban leadership with drone aircraft (and with a fair amount of success). Almost all of these attacks are in notionally Pakistani territory - either the Tribal Areas or Baluchistan. Furthermore, none of the al Qaeda leadership is in Afghanistan - all of the big players are in the Pakistani Tribal Areas or on the Pakistani mainland. (Many al Qaeda arrests, like bin Alshibh, were in Karachi.) My point is that if you pull the troops out now, or soon, the effect would be pretty much what we have already. The majority of Afghanistan is 'pacified'. although under the control of fairly reprehensible warlords. That which isn't is subject to attacks that are planned and executed from the Pakistani Tribal Areas. It would hardly be perfect, but it wouldn't be the vacuum you may imagine - and may even improve, if the real problem of militancy is sorted out in the Tribal Areas. The thing is the whole country is tribal, NATO has put one warlord in charge and there will be people who are never going to accept being ruled by him wether they are democratic or not. When we leave there's going to be tribal wars wether it's now or 10-20 years time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 19 November, 2009 Share Posted 19 November, 2009 It's because I have never fired a rifle in anger Delldays. I will officically retract the statement the first time I see you defending your point of view on the subject without simply claiming 'first hand experience' as evidence beyond any doubt. Joe - whilst I do respect your opinion (I don't agree with it) the fact remains that first hand opionion does give you a much better perspective of any (most) situations. Until this soldier actually arrived in Afghanistan his perspective of the situation was probably very much similar to yours, and mine - he went there, saw it and did what he did. Doesn't make him right - but I'm pretty certain that he had a much better perspective of the situation than any of us who have not witnessed it first hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonjoe Posted 19 November, 2009 Share Posted 19 November, 2009 Joe - whilst I do respect your opinion (I don't agree with it) the fact remains that first hand opionion does give you a much better perspective of any (most) situations. Yes, of course it offers a useful perspective to any debate. I didn't mean to imply that refering to personal experience is irrelevant to a debate. But a more sophisticated debater would appreciate that it is merely another perspective, not the be all and end all that it often gets treated as in this forum. And that is the crux of the matter, I see too many posts from those with first hand experience of the subject, claiming that an opposition point of view CAN'T be right, since it isn't backed by first hand experience. I get the impression that some posters think they must be right simply because they have first hand experience, and that they will never concede defeat in a debate to somebody without, simply for this fact. It puts a rather futile spin on proceedings as you can see where a discussion is going to go before it even gets there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 19 November, 2009 Share Posted 19 November, 2009 cant answer that question.....sorry like saying, when we beat germany in 1945 would there have been peace and harmony in europe..? Well, the war was won and now we have no...err...Nazis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kadeem Hardison Posted 19 November, 2009 Share Posted 19 November, 2009 Most people see wars, conflict and terrorist activities through the tube in your living room which unfortunately rarely actully shows anywhere near the full extent of hardships of war. The fact that often these wars are in far flung places also detaches you from actually thinking too much about them - you are detached, these are events that are not directly affecting you. "The Gulf War Did Not Take Place." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 November, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 November, 2009 Well, the war was won and now we have no...err...Nazis? did we have peace in europe after the war...nazi gone, yes... well, you know the answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 19 November, 2009 Share Posted 19 November, 2009 Yes, of course it offers a useful perspective to any debate. I didn't mean to imply that refering to personal experience is irrelevant to a debate. But a more sophisticated debater would appreciate that it is merely another perspective, not the be all and end all that it often gets treated as in this forum. And that is the crux of the matter, I see too many posts from those with first hand experience of the subject, claiming that an opposition point of view CAN'T be right, since it isn't backed by first hand experience. I get the impression that some posters think they must be right simply because they have first hand experience, and that they will never concede defeat in a debate to somebody without, simply for this fact. It puts a rather futile spin on proceedings as you can see where a discussion is going to go before it even gets there! I see, and agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 19 November, 2009 Share Posted 19 November, 2009 "The Gulf War Did Not Take Place." Over me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kadeem Hardison Posted 19 November, 2009 Share Posted 19 November, 2009 If he didn't like all the running around with guns in dangerous places, he should have joined the Navy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 19 November, 2009 Share Posted 19 November, 2009 Well, the war was won and now we have no...err...Nazis? Yes. Things are exactly the same now as 1941. No difference at all. Nothing has improved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonjoe Posted 19 November, 2009 Share Posted 19 November, 2009 I see, and agree. And I respect you fully for being able to say that, instead of "**** off you're a ****" etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.comsaint Posted 20 November, 2009 Share Posted 20 November, 2009 I think the most shameful fact of this whole episode is his blabbing to the Press & media about his reasons as to why. He should have shut the f*@k up and taken his punishment as & when it comes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 20 November, 2009 Share Posted 20 November, 2009 Spot on .com That has angered most of my mates the fact he has blabbed to the press. he has lost all respect with the RLC. Oh by the Soton Joe , I have been in a few hots spots during my service career, I signed up to be a medic and I also had to carry a weapon or a pistol depending on what I was doing. The weapon gun was for protection of the casualties I had to deal with. the pistol was for my own protection when I was in NI. So get your facts right sotonjoe about people signing up before slagging servicemen off, Even if your comments were directed at the jack tar:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 20 November, 2009 Share Posted 20 November, 2009 Spot on .com That has angered most of my mates the fact he has blabbed to the press. he has lost all respect with the RLC. Oh by the Soton Joe , I have been in a few hots spots during my service career, I signed up to be a medic and I also had to carry a weapon or a pistol depending on what I was doing. The weapon gun was for protection of the casualties I had to deal with. the pistol was for my own protection when I was in NI. So get your facts right sotonjoe about people signing up before slagging servicemen off, Even if your comments were directed at the jack tar:rolleyes: There are plenty of us on here who were in HM Forces and who fought in the Falklands and Iraq or served in NI or Bosnia who treat the anti-military comments with the comtempt they deserve, especially as they are off spineless keyboard warriors. People should also understand that you can support the lads on the front line without supporting the war they are fighting. Soliders/sailors/airmen die when politicans send them to war and it is against those that any anger should be directed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emerson massey Posted 20 November, 2009 Share Posted 20 November, 2009 There are plenty of us on here who were in HM Forces and who fought in the Falklands and Iraq or served in NI or Bosnia who treat the anti-military comments with the comtempt they deserve, especially as they are off spineless keyboard warriors. People should also understand that you can support the lads on the front line without supporting the war they are fighting. Soliders/sailors/airmen die when politicans send them to war and it is against those that any anger should be directed. Not all anti-military comments deserve contempt, and people who may have a different opinion to you on that matter are not 'spineless keyboard warriors' - that is a massive case of pigeon-holing.... i'm sure most people would repeat their views in a face to face conversation, it is their view and own opinion after all. I know plenty about the military, and come from a long line of soldiers and sailors and am very proud that is the case, it just vexes me when people cannot accept someone elses opinion - i for one will always support our troops, even if i disagree with the way they have been currently deployed but will never feel the need to show contempt for people who have a different view to me. That way danger lies.... This is not meant as a dig, but merely a voicing of my opinion - i dont want to labelled as another one of those 'spineless keyboard warriors' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emerson massey Posted 20 November, 2009 Share Posted 20 November, 2009 oh and yes, he should be charged, he knew what he was getting in to, if not then precedence will have been set and anyone will feel they can get away with it imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 20 November, 2009 Share Posted 20 November, 2009 There are plenty of us on here who were in HM Forces and who fought in the Falklands and Iraq or served in NI or Bosnia who treat the anti-military comments with the comtempt they deserve, especially as they are off spineless keyboard warriors. People should also understand that you can support the lads on the front line without supporting the war they are fighting. Soliders/sailors/airmen die when politicans send them to war and it is against those that any anger should be directed. What I've said all along. It's not the servicemen/women's fault, they get given orders, and they have to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now