Fame Monster
Well-Known Member
Re: Looks like as from 10pm we are at war
What about it?
typicalcity68 said:
What about it?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Libya (Merged)
- Thread starter typicalcity68
- Start date
typicalcity68
Well-Known Member
Re: Looks like as from 10pm we are at war
a bunch of lefties trying to put a stop to the rise of fascim which eventually flourished into the killing machine that was the Nazis.
a bunch of lefties trying to put a stop to the rise of fascim which eventually flourished into the killing machine that was the Nazis.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Re: Looks like as from 10pm we are at war
1. couple of weeks ago you actively tried to discourage someone from joining the navy. Who do you expect to fight these campaigns for you?
2. a while back you accused Thatcher of being a war criminal over the Belgrano. It seems your rule about people challenging dictators who murder their own people doesn't apply to her.
nashark said:gordondaviesmoustache said:This is a fantastic post Nashark, but you do have some inconsistent views when it comes to warfare.
Such as?
1. couple of weeks ago you actively tried to discourage someone from joining the navy. Who do you expect to fight these campaigns for you?
2. a while back you accused Thatcher of being a war criminal over the Belgrano. It seems your rule about people challenging dictators who murder their own people doesn't apply to her.
Fame Monster
Well-Known Member
Re: Looks like as from 10pm we are at war
Then you misunderstand my post, nobcheese.
typicalcity68 said:a bunch of lefties trying to put a stop to the rise of fascim which eventually flourished into the killing machine that was the Nazis.
Then you misunderstand my post, nobcheese.
Phleeper
Well-Known Member
Re: Looks like as from 10pm we are at war
How can we enforce it when we've decommissioned the aircraft carriers and scrapped the Harriers?
How can we enforce it when we've decommissioned the aircraft carriers and scrapped the Harriers?
u2fme2
Well-Known Member
Re: Looks like as from 10pm we are at war
more should have kept our aircraft carriers<br /><br />-- Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:57 pm --<br /><br />one more reason we should have kept our aircraft carriers
more should have kept our aircraft carriers<br /><br />-- Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:57 pm --<br /><br />one more reason we should have kept our aircraft carriers
Fame Monster
Well-Known Member
Re: Looks like as from 10pm we are at war
1. Anyone who is prepared to kill a man or die for their country is an utter scumbag. If you were to rid the world of these scumbags, we would be living in glorious peace all over the world. Anyone who idolises such a figure is a person who goes without thinking and deserves misery.
On the other hand, those who fight and die for a just cause, are the finest, most virtuous type of human being and earn a respect from me that will never die.
The people who will fight these campaigns are those described in the latter.
2. I think the nostalgia of discussing the war, and the sort of pride that entailed at the time prevented you from entering into a reasonable dialogue and a reasonable conclusion.
In the Thatcher thread, I provided numerous accounts that suggest Thatcher was a war criminal. Of course, you need a leap of faith to decide whether she was or she wasn't, but if you believe that she fought the war with an honourable jus in bello then you believe that it took over 11 hours for the Americans and Chileans to contact Britain to say that Argentina were prepared to accept a peace deal. Importantly, this is a much greater leap of faith than the one I take when I decide that she was a war criminal because there's no chance that a phonecall of that importance would take over 11 hours, when in reality, it would not take 11 minutes.
gordondaviesmoustache said:nashark said:Such as?
1. couple of weeks ago you actively tried to discourage someone from joining the navy. Who do you expect to fight these campaigns for you?
2. a while back you accused Thatcher of being a war criminal over the Belgrano. It seems your rule about people challenging dictators who murder their own people doesn't apply to her.
1. Anyone who is prepared to kill a man or die for their country is an utter scumbag. If you were to rid the world of these scumbags, we would be living in glorious peace all over the world. Anyone who idolises such a figure is a person who goes without thinking and deserves misery.
On the other hand, those who fight and die for a just cause, are the finest, most virtuous type of human being and earn a respect from me that will never die.
The people who will fight these campaigns are those described in the latter.
2. I think the nostalgia of discussing the war, and the sort of pride that entailed at the time prevented you from entering into a reasonable dialogue and a reasonable conclusion.
In the Thatcher thread, I provided numerous accounts that suggest Thatcher was a war criminal. Of course, you need a leap of faith to decide whether she was or she wasn't, but if you believe that she fought the war with an honourable jus in bello then you believe that it took over 11 hours for the Americans and Chileans to contact Britain to say that Argentina were prepared to accept a peace deal. Importantly, this is a much greater leap of faith than the one I take when I decide that she was a war criminal because there's no chance that a phonecall of that importance would take over 11 hours, when in reality, it would not take 11 minutes.
typicalcity68
Well-Known Member
Re: Looks like as from 10pm we are at war
now that is a mofo good postnashark said:gordondaviesmoustache said:1. couple of weeks ago you actively tried to discourage someone from joining the navy. Who do you expect to fight these campaigns for you?
2. a while back you accused Thatcher of being a war criminal over the Belgrano. It seems your rule about people challenging dictators who murder their own people doesn't apply to her.
1. Anyone who is prepared to kill a man or die for their country is an utter scumbag. If you were to rid the world of these scumbags, we would be living in glorious peace all over the world. Anyone who idolises such a figure is a person who goes without thinking and deserves misery.
On the other hand, those who fight and die for a just cause, are the finest, most virtuous type of human being and earn a respect from me that will never die.
The people who will fight these campaigns are those described in the latter.
2. I think the nostalgia of discussing the war, and the sort of pride that entailed at the time prevented you from entering into a reasonable dialogue and a reasonable conclusion.
In the Thatcher thread, I provided numerous accounts that suggest Thatcher was a war criminal. Of course, you need a leap of faith to decide whether she was or she wasn't, but if you believe that she fought the war with an honourable jus in bello then you believe that it took over 11 hours for the Americans and Chileans to contact Britain to say that Argentina were prepared to accept a peace deal. Importantly, this is a much greater leap of faith than the one I take when I decide that she was a war criminal because there's no chance that a phonecall of that importance would take over 11 hours, when in reality, it would not take 11 minutes.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Re: Looks like as from 10pm we are at war
1. I think most people would take issue with your assertion that anyone who is prepared to die for their country is a 'scumbag'. To my mind the difference between someone who is seeking to protect their country from what they genuinely perceive as an outside force which threatens it (however misguided) and someone who perceives that threat to come from within their own nation and attempts to change it by force is marginal. The only thing that appears to differentiate a 'scumbag' from 'the most virtuous type of human being' to you is whether you agree with their cause rather than the sincerity of their views.
Whilst I admire your aspiration for peace in our time, I'm afraid to say as long as human beings are involved in the equation it's not going to happen. I suspect you know that, so your comments about glorious peace appear a little glib.
2. I do not recall entering into a dialogue of any description with you in that thread, nor do I recall failing to respond to any prompts from you to do so, but I am happy to do that now.
I would take issue with your assertion that I was nostalgic and full of pride in relation to the Falklands. I can only assume what this misconception is based on . What I said, and you can dig up the post if required, was that in terms of her excecution of the war Thatcher played a perfect game. And she did. Strategically, and in my view morally she was spot on. She was defending sovreign territory (we can argue about that validity of that I guess, but that would also be equally true of half of the world on that basis) that had been invaded by a fascist dictatorship. You could say, in fact, that what she did was 'interventionalist'. She could have stood by and negotiated, and there was pressure from within her own party to so do, but she resisted.
In terms of the Galtieri regime you appear to be happy to take their word on their desire for peace after they had invaded the Falklands. Some might say to take a fascist dictatorship at their word after they had invaded your sovreign territory would be a little naive. Would you take Gaddafi at his word? I suspect not. The fact that you appear to be prepared to take the word of another fascist is, to my mind, inconsistent, and hence my post.
Anyway when are you taking me to the theatre & rugby?<br /><br />-- Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:06 am --<br /><br />
nobcheese
nashark said:gordondaviesmoustache said:1. couple of weeks ago you actively tried to discourage someone from joining the navy. Who do you expect to fight these campaigns for you?
2. a while back you accused Thatcher of being a war criminal over the Belgrano. It seems your rule about people challenging dictators who murder their own people doesn't apply to her.
1. Anyone who is prepared to kill a man or die for their country is an utter scumbag. If you were to rid the world of these scumbags, we would be living in glorious peace all over the world. Anyone who idolises such a figure is a person who goes without thinking and deserves misery.
On the other hand, those who fight and die for a just cause, are the finest, most virtuous type of human being and earn a respect from me that will never die.
The people who will fight these campaigns are those described in the latter.
2. I think the nostalgia of discussing the war, and the sort of pride that entailed at the time prevented you from entering into a reasonable dialogue and a reasonable conclusion.
In the Thatcher thread, I provided numerous accounts that suggest Thatcher was a war criminal. Of course, you need a leap of faith to decide whether she was or she wasn't, but if you believe that she fought the war with an honourable jus in bello then you believe that it took over 11 hours for the Americans and Chileans to contact Britain to say that Argentina were prepared to accept a peace deal. Importantly, this is a much greater leap of faith than the one I take when I decide that she was a war criminal because there's no chance that a phonecall of that importance would take over 11 hours, when in reality, it would not take 11 minutes.
1. I think most people would take issue with your assertion that anyone who is prepared to die for their country is a 'scumbag'. To my mind the difference between someone who is seeking to protect their country from what they genuinely perceive as an outside force which threatens it (however misguided) and someone who perceives that threat to come from within their own nation and attempts to change it by force is marginal. The only thing that appears to differentiate a 'scumbag' from 'the most virtuous type of human being' to you is whether you agree with their cause rather than the sincerity of their views.
Whilst I admire your aspiration for peace in our time, I'm afraid to say as long as human beings are involved in the equation it's not going to happen. I suspect you know that, so your comments about glorious peace appear a little glib.
2. I do not recall entering into a dialogue of any description with you in that thread, nor do I recall failing to respond to any prompts from you to do so, but I am happy to do that now.
I would take issue with your assertion that I was nostalgic and full of pride in relation to the Falklands. I can only assume what this misconception is based on . What I said, and you can dig up the post if required, was that in terms of her excecution of the war Thatcher played a perfect game. And she did. Strategically, and in my view morally she was spot on. She was defending sovreign territory (we can argue about that validity of that I guess, but that would also be equally true of half of the world on that basis) that had been invaded by a fascist dictatorship. You could say, in fact, that what she did was 'interventionalist'. She could have stood by and negotiated, and there was pressure from within her own party to so do, but she resisted.
In terms of the Galtieri regime you appear to be happy to take their word on their desire for peace after they had invaded the Falklands. Some might say to take a fascist dictatorship at their word after they had invaded your sovreign territory would be a little naive. Would you take Gaddafi at his word? I suspect not. The fact that you appear to be prepared to take the word of another fascist is, to my mind, inconsistent, and hence my post.
Anyway when are you taking me to the theatre & rugby?<br /><br />-- Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:06 am --<br /><br />
typicalcity68 said:now that is a mofo good postnashark said:1. Anyone who is prepared to kill a man or die for their country is an utter scumbag. If you were to rid the world of these scumbags, we would be living in glorious peace all over the world. Anyone who idolises such a figure is a person who goes without thinking and deserves misery.
On the other hand, those who fight and die for a just cause, are the finest, most virtuous type of human being and earn a respect from me that will never die.
The people who will fight these campaigns are those described in the latter.
2. I think the nostalgia of discussing the war, and the sort of pride that entailed at the time prevented you from entering into a reasonable dialogue and a reasonable conclusion.
In the Thatcher thread, I provided numerous accounts that suggest Thatcher was a war criminal. Of course, you need a leap of faith to decide whether she was or she wasn't, but if you believe that she fought the war with an honourable jus in bello then you believe that it took over 11 hours for the Americans and Chileans to contact Britain to say that Argentina were prepared to accept a peace deal. Importantly, this is a much greater leap of faith than the one I take when I decide that she was a war criminal because there's no chance that a phonecall of that importance would take over 11 hours, when in reality, it would not take 11 minutes.
nobcheese
Swales lives
Well-Known Member
Re: Looks like as from 10pm we are at war
Looks like that tenner I had on the world ending in 2012 is looking good. Get in!!
Looks like that tenner I had on the world ending in 2012 is looking good. Get in!!