vortexring

I do appreciate their efforts to prevent many murders and other horrible things. Unfortunately they weren't very successful doing it and we have many infamous areas of former Yugoslavia known only by war atrocities (with NATO peace forces present and unable to do anything). Well, you've your own countrymen to fundamentally blame for that - so why not just fuck off in regards to blaming and being critical of NATO? I agree it was politicians that made the decision to send missiles flying over there and it was also politicians that send troops there. But you have to agree it is the soldier on the ground that holds the rifle and fires it, no matter who told him to do so. It is their decision to be made and each and every one of them should stand behind their decisions (like I and most other other people do) and also take the heat when shit hits the fan. I think you're meaning moral leadership here (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong), but who or what are you alluding to here, in regards to their decisions and the shit hitting the fan? Soldiers disobeying their orders? Going beyond their rules of engagement? In the society we live in that is the only fair option to choose from. You might not like that but then you'd be quite annoyed if some one sent you to an island in the middle of nowhere and lock you in a cage without telling you why you are held there and not allow you to have any legal (or other) representation. Torture and humiliation is optional but it seems to be quite regular occurrence so there's one more thing to not look forward to. Oh bollox. Earlier you mentioned you've every right to go about your business in your front yard without somebody pointing a gun at your head. I made a point - similiar to how the Taliban behave - that it may well be for the common good that somebody does point a gun at your head - in regards to the fact you've behaved in such a way the law/courts,etc can't deal with your behaviour in a timely fashion. In the society we live in, that's not always the fairest option. Or the most sensible. Can't you see that? As for your reference to Guantanamo; why not? I'd probably be living in the Bahamas by now, or at least back home carrying on with my terrorism if I was that way inclined. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I think anyone trying to impose his or her beliefs on to others by force is a fanatic. My personal opinion: FUCK THEM ALL. Really I can’t wait till all these idiots die of the planet so we can go on and actually progress as a species. I wouldn't hold your breath..... On a lighter note, nations armies shouldn't be sent to fight one another - that is fucking daft. I've always been a big believer the fight should be between the two leaders that have the dispute. In a boxing ring - televised internationally - with chainsaws.

Ive done my share of fighting and had the testicular, moral, and ethical fortitude to tell the basij holding an AK47 to my head to go fuck him self. YOU WISH YOU HAD MY BALLS. And as for the uprising just because this is the first one you heard tweets on, that doesn’t mean it was the first. There have been hundreds more over the past 20 years. Again proving my point that you are uninformed and lack the knowledge to know that you are simply clueless. Can you name one time where you risk your life just for what you believe in? Something that you were not paid to do?.......... Darius, please try not to get upset and excitable. You might be wise to regard Warped's advice..........ok, ok, just this one time, at least. I am enjoying the insinuations that NATO forces are similiar in their motivation to carry out the atrocities that the Taliban/Al-Quaeda do. I'm amazed that having the opinion you have, you actually live in the USA. How could you live in such an evil terrorist country that's hell bent in killing your country men?

The point of my paragraph was the involvement of US in majority of modern day conflicts (conflicts following WW2) and I still believe this is way off topic and I choose to skip it. Please don't - I reckon it's quite relevant. That aspect of the conversation you can send by PM and it'll stay private. I'm interested, that's all. Not trying to be smartass or anything but if you do know the answers would you be willing to share them with me? I also understand this is very personal subject so you might not be willing to share that over public forums with people you've never met. Sure. Firstly I reckon I was a little offended by how you went about bringing this topic up initially. It seemed you'd made the assumption that military personnel are rather brainless in regards to the reasons of why they're there, why they fight, etc. Each individual will always have their own answers for the reasons for doing what they do. In regards to the conflict in Afghanistan, and the generic/official reasons, that does deserve some study, I guess that's going to be a whole new post in itself when I've the time. Well formulated and logical response. Similiar to your points which brought the withering reply? I was kinda hoping that if some one decides to join the army he/she should also realize that this decisions brings high probability that that person is going to be ordered to kill other men. I expect them to think this decision prior to being to looking down the barrel of the gun with their finger on the trigger. Furthermore I demand (yes, I said demand) that they take _individual_responsibility_ for any acts that may result from their decision to join the army. This would include all answers and reasons and opinions and every other moral dilemma that this question poses. My father was an officer in Yugoslavian army (he quit before being sent to Croatia/Bosnia). I was thinking it might have been the Balkans. Don't know where to go with this one really. It was NATO that prevented a large number of evil murdering fuckers from murdering in the Balkans. You, of all people, should appreciate that. You, of all people, should appreciate the sacrifices NATO made towards saving the innocents of that particular area of the world. Because it's the army that invades the countries, it the army men that march with weapons in peoples' backyards it's the army that tells them to abandon their homes and run for their lives. Its the decision that army makes whether I like it or not. And I don't like it and I'm doing my best to change that (which is just debating with people but you gotta start somewhere). In this argument regarding Afghan. it's the politicians mate. That might be the best solution. However everyone has a right to a fair trial even if the whole world wants to shoot them. That is the whole point of having courts and law enforcements. If you disagree with that do your best to get rid of police and courts and see where takes you... Ok........so lets just take the Taliban and Al-Quaeda to court shall we? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

None, dividing people by country is for idiots I thought this part was pretty clear. So they weren't for country. I'd have been surprised if they were, hence my fascination. And who's trying to divide people by country? You're not one of those people who feel their country owe themselves a living are you? Sure, it's fairly clear you misunderstand people in the modern military, I'm now curious as to how you perceive your position to your country in regards to what you do, or believe you should do. Just look out for number 1? What have you done for your country? I wonder, because if you believe making an effort for your country is for idiots, what else, if anything, do you do for people within your sphere of influence? Your community? Heck, you clearly state it in your profile, so what've you done? Or is all your disdain towards ''the idiots'' that serve their nations in a military aspect? Further to that - you also know they're not all idiots. They might be different to you - but covering them all with the 'idiot' brush is rather inflammatory, as your fully aware. So please explain why they're all idiots? Or would you rather just be continually inflammatory, as per your normal standard of postings. Hence the reason why I offered you out for a beer and a chat. I doubt you'd be so rude when you're chatting to somebody in person, rather than chatting to an internet forum. The offers still there. Prove me wrong if you like. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Anyone still fighting for the people that torture other innocent people with no one taking responsibility (and I'm pretty sure the CO of those accused in Abu Ghraib was in it as well, just covered his ass better). Not to mention all other atrocities that media has no access to, as a soldier you should be familiar with them. I will skip this obvious flamebait as it has nothing to do with this thread. I'm disappointed - you've an opinion which could be interesting; especially as you allude to it being controversial. Forget the flamebait and fire it off. I was hoping you as a serving soldier will be able answer these questions for me as I (as stated) was able to and neither were others involved. I would very sincerely like an honest answer why people still go abroad for no obvious reason and/or benefit. Perhaps I misinterpreted your position. It seemed you had the answers that the servicemen and women do not. And yes, it is an area that's not quite as clear as it should be, for some. So I recognise your point. Well formulated and logical response. Similiar to your points which brought the withering reply? No, my father explained to me that it does get easier as individual people turn to statistics. I guess he quit the army when he was ordered to kill people who used to be his countrymen (countries do brake apart and usually shit follows). Most people involved in army are not capable of this. And I never said I have the answers, I was simply asking anyone that has them to provide them. Do you think anyone has the answers, or rather an opinion? Which country was your father fighting for if you don't mind me asking? Of course it would. But somehow I don't feel it's up to any army to decide if what I'm doing is right or wrong (as a mere idea of a totalitarian organisation deciding rights and wrongs is perverse to say the least). Well good - who said, or insinuated it's up to an army to make the moral decision in such circumstances? If your acting (hypothetically) in a manner as previously described, I'd say the best solution would be a bullet in your head - save you killing more innocents. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Just a quick reply Marg otherwise my eyes will end up spinning like fruit machine wheels again. Your post reminds me of previous posts we've made, namely being yours in regards to negotiating with the Taliban, and one of mine where I tried to look at the numerous reasons given by officials why we're in Afghanistan - and how often these reasons seem to change. That's an area I'll bring up into more detail/links,etc when I've got the time. Seeing as it's such a contentious issue. Like those pics. . . 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Why do so many Americans defend their healthcare system, ranked 37th in the world by the WHO in 2000? (World Health Organisation, not the band.) http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Its not about how much you spend its about where you spend it. Yep, as long as it's a company based in a town beginning with Y. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

The headline, at least as I view it, is "There is no refuge, no place to go to deal with your grief." Ok, the introductory phrase or secondary headline, Miss Pedantic - you're not still annoyed over the cumulous/cumulonimbus debacle are you?

The headline is typically sensationalist of a newspaper. What else would you expect? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

For what? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

What blind trust is that? Have incidents such as Abu Ghraib and the disrespect some governments have for their military not been demonstrated enough? I think you'd be mad to have blind trust. I don't know anyone who has. Seems you do know. Who are these people? Why not? I, and I'm sure others, would be most interested to hear your analysis. Why are they in Afghanistan then? Who are they fighting? Why are they fighting? It seems you are happy in a knowledge that's somehow incomprehensible to servicemen and women so please feel free to enlighten us. Cobblers. Utter nonsense. Who was that? Like duh! Shootin' folks is fun! Didn't your father tell you this? And there's you earlier alluding to knowing answers servicemen and woman do not. Wouldn't it also depend on what you're doing in your front yard? Are you sunbathing and minding your own business or are you terrorising and illegally killing your family whilst harbouring a major terrorist organisation? If it's the latter do you still think nobody should be allowed to walk into your front yard and tell you what to do? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I'm fascinated now. What sacrifices did you make for your country? I understand 'a couple'. What were they? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

No, its for idiots who lack a basic level of understanding with regards to both history and the world around them. I've had to avoid replying to most of your points regarding the PA issue - but I'd still like to carry on the discussion - without the PA's. It's this last point that interests me. In an ideal world, people wouldn't join the military, there wouldn't be a need for a country to have a military. Perhaps we'll one day evolve into such a scenario throughout the world but I'm not exactly holding my breath. Do you feel this way towards the police? The law? To any authoritive figure? Anyone who wields power over you? Your employer? Or is it just towards NATO forces, heavily influenced by America, in Afghanistan? How many servicemen and women do you think question the reasoning for why they're in Afghanistan? How many resign over the fact they're unable to receive satisfactory answers? The fact remains that they were still willing to serve their country - to possibly die for their country. The Western civilian workers in Afghanistan; the workers risking their lives to build back the nations infastructure - are they equally as bad? Or the military medics working to save not only NATO soldiers lives but guess who elses? What sacrifices did you ever make? To speak of such people as being no better than the Taliban is wrong. Perhaps you should study the Taliban a little closer. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

The list is to small. If we just consider famous commanders through history, what about: Saladin, Attila the Hun, MacArthur, Vo Naguyen Giap, Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson, Ulysses, Dwight David Eisenhower, Rommel, Monty, Churchill, William the Conqueror, Gustavus Adolphus, Robert Bruce, Wallace, etc, etc!! I know who mine is. And he isn't famous. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Have a look: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6792233.ece Lack of parking? I've never heard such nonsense in my life. Seriously. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Ok, what about a Section Commander of an infantry unit, commanding 8 to 10 men?

But that's the beauty of the question, because nobody can be sure until they're in the situation. And the next? I think we have trouble deciding on the answer to this question because we've the time to dwell on our emotional attachments to our pets. Have we this time for when it's real? My argument is that human instinct kicks in and we save the stranger. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Maybe little erricomalatesta is Fidel!? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

As you'll find that the majority of street dealers and pushers are coloured. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Ok dokey. But in your example, how many people were arrested for the white crime? How many are arrested for coloured crime such as muggings? Hence the majority. If we look at the main reasons that the majority of crimes are carried out by coloured people, can we put that down to the fact they're more likely to be economically deprived? So is that therefore social injustice, or prejudice? Or is it through migrants starting off fairly low on the social ladder employment wise and the existance of a culture of anti-intellectualism and gangs? But then, what of Asian cultures in the UK and USA that proportionately commit less crimes?? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Talking stupidly of facts? What? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Perhaps little erricomalatesta was fed a diet of lemons and crab apples throughout his life by an authoritive figure, hence making him so bitter? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'