FabSwingers.com forum: NATO the army and a danger to the country

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Having read all the posts about corbyn and his disloyalty to the army, it reminded me of a book I'd read many years ago by smedley butler, considering he died the most decorated marine in history, is someone's opinion only as good as their past history

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Couldn't agree more. But so long as we remain uneducated, and I don't mean the dross trotted out in formal education, the longer such manipulation will continue.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Great post.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Couldn't agree more. But so long as we remain uneducated, and I don't mean the dross trotted out in formal education, the longer such manipulation will continue. "

The facts are out there for those who choose to question, sadly for many ignorance is bliss.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

Good post SB, what next a war in the middle east against an oil rich country weakened by sanctions 'because we can' whereby American corporations make an absolute packet..?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

Military Oedipal Complex?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *opinovMan
over a year ago

Point Nemo, Cumbria

Smedley Butler's "War Is A Racket" should be on every school's reading list, along with "1984" and "Dulce Et Decorum Est".

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Smedley Butler's "War Is A Racket" should be on every school's reading list, along with "1984" and "Dulce Et Decorum Est"."
.

It's hard to push him off as a pacifist, when he was awarded two medal of honours for bravery above and beyond the call of duty!

So what to do with him and people like miko peled and his book the generals son..... Bury them!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Of course whow betide them who come to the same conclusion but wear a scruffy shirt and ride a bike

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ancadamMan
over a year ago

Stockport

great post op.as always.thanks.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Of course whow betide them who come to the same conclusion but wear a scruffy shirt and ride a bike

Boris Johnson is a scruffy cunt and he rides a bike. But he's filthy rich, so that's just eccentric!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Very thought provoking and illuminating post SB

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *opinovMan
over a year ago

Point Nemo, Cumbria

"Smedley Butler's "War Is A Racket" should be on every school's reading list, along with "1984" and "Dulce Et Decorum Est"..

It's hard to push him off as a pacifist, when he was awarded two medal of honours for bravery above and beyond the call of duty!"

Or, in Wilfred Owen's case, died at the front in the trenches - I've stimied jingoists who, in the past, have accused me of disrespecting their memory by pointing out I was merely quoting one of those they claim to be honouring.

"So what to do with him and people like miko peled and his book the generals son..... Bury them!"

... as they do with everything that doesn't suit their agenda... or business plan.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ummersun99Woman
over a year ago

North Yorkshire by the Sea

Very well said

I respect the men and women who choose to work for the forces to defend and protect us and our freedoms.

But the governments and politicians that send our troops to fight and die in wars on foreign soil for oil, uranium, corporate interests, weapons trade, political positioning and the profits that companies make from wars.. well that's beyond me.

The facts are out there as someone said. Anyone with an awareness can talk, share, spread that awareness like an epidemic.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Sometimes but not always. I am not sure we could have defeated Hitler by just attempting to defend our coastline. Was World War II influenced merely by economics?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *vsnikkiTV/TS
over a year ago

Limavady

"Smedley Butler's "War Is A Racket" should be on every school's reading list, along with "1984" and "Dulce Et Decorum Est"..

It's hard to push him off as a pacifist, when he was awarded two medal of honours for bravery above and beyond the call of duty!

So what to do with him and people like miko peled and his book the generals son..... Bury them!"

Just because you've been brave in a war don't stop you being a pacifist. There's a difference between pacifists and consciencous objectors

Eg the ex archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie, won the Military Cross in WW2

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *est Wales WifeCouple
over a year ago

Near Carmarthen

"Having read all the posts about corbyn and his disloyalty to the army,

Haven't read them but perhaps someone can tell me exactly where he is being disloyal? As far as I'm aware he actually said

"Wouldn’t it be wonderful if every politician around the world instead of taking pride in the size of their armed forces did what the people of Costa Rica have done and abolished the army and took pride in the fact that they don’t have an army, and that their country is near the top of the global peace index. Surely that is the way we should be going forward."

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock

"Sometimes but not always. I am not sure we could have defeated Hitler by just attempting to defend our coastline. Was World War II influenced merely by economics?"

Defending the coastline didn't stop the Luftwaffe flying over our border and bombing the hell out of us in ww2. To gain air superiority over an enemy is usually the first line of attack these days.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Sometimes but not always. I am not sure we could have defeated Hitler by just attempting to defend our coastline. Was World War II influenced merely by economics?"
.

You know that romantic train ride, the orient express!

It was going from Basra to Berlin, the Germans were master chemists of the late 1800s and were already committed to a completely petroleum running navy by 1908!

Not a good sign for a royal navy still running on coal and way behind.

Still that chap Franz Ferdinand helped sort that problem out!

The first British troops sent for ww1 went to Basra from I think royal Devonshire's?

Even most historians would admit ww1 caused ww2 but if you want to blame somebody for Hitler's rise look no further than the multitude of corporate giants that flooded Germany with cash and investment during the thirties... I mean America and Britain had got unions for labour rates... Can't have that can we now

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Sometimes but not always. I am not sure we could have defeated Hitler by just attempting to defend our coastline. Was World War II influenced merely by economics?.

You know that romantic train ride, the orient express!

It was going from Basra to Berlin, the Germans were master chemists of the late 1800s and were already committed to a completely petroleum running navy by 1908!

Not a good sign for a royal navy still running on coal and way behind.

Still that chap Franz Ferdinand helped sort that problem out!

The first British troops sent for ww1 went to Basra from I think royal Devonshire's?

Possibly but I shudder to think what might have come to pass if we had restricted our involvement to defending our own coastline.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Sometimes but not always. I am not sure we could have defeated Hitler by just attempting to defend our coastline. Was World War II influenced merely by economics?"

I think it is widely accepted that Hitler's expansionist, inflationary economic policies had to result in a big war or else face economic meltdown so in part you're right. From a British point of view I think it was more political than economic

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ipswingCouple
over a year ago

portrush

"Sometimes but not always. I am not sure we could have defeated Hitler by just attempting to defend our coastline. Was World War II influenced merely by economics?"

wonder what it was that made Hitler so popular at home? ahh i remember ..the state of the country ...wonder how that came about??

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Sometimes but not always. I am not sure we could have defeated Hitler by just attempting to defend our coastline. Was World War II influenced merely by economics?.

You know that romantic train ride, the orient express!

It was going from Basra to Berlin, the Germans were master chemists of the late 1800s and were already committed to a completely petroleum running navy by 1908!

Not a good sign for a royal navy still running on coal and way behind.

Still that chap Franz Ferdinand helped sort that problem out!

The first British troops sent for ww1 went to Basra from I think royal Devonshire's?

Possibly but I shudder to think what might have come to pass if we had restricted our involvement to defending our own coastline."
.

It's Semantics, who knows?

Of course it didn't come as unexpected did it.... Winston Churchill himself spent many years declaring the problems that were building in Germany in the thirties!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

"Sometimes but not always. I am not sure we could have defeated Hitler by just attempting to defend our coastline. Was World War II influenced merely by economics?

wonder what it was that made Hitler so popular at home? ahh i remember ..the state of the country ...wonder how that came about??"

and the exploitation of those who chose to follow a nationalist agenda..

on op of excessive reparations post ww1 etc

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Possibly but I shudder to think what might have come to pass if we had restricted our involvement to defending our own coastline..

It's Semantics, who knows?!"

OP, while I too think war is invoked far too easily and often on false pretences, my response was not merely semantic.

Sometimes it may be necessary to do more than just protect our coastline. While it is of course impossible to prove, I believe that there would have been a very different and more regrettable outcome to World War 2 if we had decided to do only that.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Possibly but I shudder to think what might have come to pass if we had restricted our involvement to defending our own coastline..

It's Semantics, who knows?!

OP, while I too think war is invoked far too easily and often on false pretences, my response was not merely semantic.

IMO Hitler wouldn't have managed to invade the UK, the coast was our best help of defence not the Americans, and I'm not trying to be ungrateful to American help, there real help came way before 1941 in supplies and that was mostly supplied by the merchant navy!

hero's come in many uniforms!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Possibly but I shudder to think what might have come to pass if we had restricted our involvement to defending our own coastline..

It's Semantics, who knows?!

OP, while I too think war is invoked far too easily and often on false pretences, my response was not merely semantic.

hero's come in many uniforms!"

Well, on that we will simply have to disagree. There is no way of proving it, just a matter of opinion.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So we abolish the army and set up a force field around the UK that can zap anyone or anything that poses a threat to our security. What a great idea for a book

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

And let the arabs keep their oil,it's running out anyway,we can harness the power of the sun-no,make that the wind-no,make that nuclear power,or hydro power,or the power of Greyskull!!

Just think,no more imported illegal drugs,no unwanted foreigners,no Aids coming in from Africa,zap zap. We can all live off the land in a huge commune!! Peace and Love people

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago

carrbrook stalybridge

hes no threat to this country as according to 90% of the media in this country hes un electable so would never be in a position to affect our security

think tory central/the murdoch empire need to re think their strategy on this one its a bit contradictory

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *vsnikkiTV/TS
over a year ago

Limavady

hero's come in many uniforms!"

He wouldn't have needed to invade. UK would almost certainly have been starved into surrender in 1941.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

OP, I think you need a bit of a reality check.

It is obvious you have no knowledge or understanding of war, your stance is at best childish in its absurdity.

Firstly like it or not the USA has one thing absolutely right. It fights its wars on other peoples land and as far away from US soil as possible. Thankfully we have learned the lessons of WW2 and now do the same. Maybe you should give a little thought to the cost of refusing to fight our enemies on their land and choosing instead to wait till they get here before we act.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *im himCouple (MM)
over a year ago

bedworth

What a great post . It should be printed poster size and put on every military recruitment wall . We are fed so much crap by Main stream media it's a joke . We don't watch any main stream news anymore . It just makes us angry .

"We're all in it together " more like there all in it together ! Main stream media , bankers , corporates & and most polititions . Now wouldn't the world be a better place with out them !

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"OP, I think you need a bit of a reality check.

It is obvious you have no knowledge or understanding of war, your stance is at best childish in its absurdity.

Whos enemy are you alluding to?

My enemy's are diffrent than yours, most of mine are corporations that seek to underhandedly ruin my countryside!

If you wish to fight your foreign battles your free to do so, ch4 tonight at ten, nobodys stopping you, thats the beautiful thing about freedom and democracy, you dont need state involvement to carry out your personal beliefs!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *opinovMan
over a year ago

Point Nemo, Cumbria

"OP, I think you need a bit of a reality check.

It is obvious you have no knowledge or understanding of war, your stance is at best childish in its absurdity.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear, WillWill - I suspect you have no idea that the OP was quoting the words of General Smedley Butler directly. General Butler was one of the most experienced professional soldiers in history, so your assertion that his word in any way display a lack of knowledge and understanding, or are childishly absurd betrays your own ignorance of one of the greatest military writers of his age - but never you mind that... you just carry on living in your bubble and giving the rest of us a laugh.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *opinovMan
over a year ago

Point Nemo, Cumbria

Having said that, I do increasingly think that Hitler would have made a serious attempt to take Britain had the US not come into the war - Churchill mnew that, which is why be was so keen on petitioning them to join on the allied side, and was hugely relieved at the attack on Pearl.

That said, the words of General Butler are as true today as the day he wrote them... perhaps even more so.

In out time too, war is most definitely a racket.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

"OP, I think you need a bit of a reality check.

It is obvious you have no knowledge or understanding of war, your stance is at best childish in its absurdity. "

do you then, have a knowledge or understanding of war etc..

is that now the basis upon which one can refer to a specific subject..?

one must have etc etc..

the OP was quoting someone not advocating the future defence strategy of the country..

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock

"OP, I think you need a bit of a reality check.

It is obvious you have no knowledge or understanding of war, your stance is at best childish in its absurdity.

Whos enemy are you alluding to?

My enemy's are diffrent than yours, most of mine are corporations that seek to underhandedly ruin my countryside!

Would all brits have freedom and democracy under Corbyn rule though? It's seems he would be willing to dismiss the democracy of the Falkland islanders and hand over power sharing to the Argies, despite the overwhelming result of the referendum they had a couple of years ago to remain fully British.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Actually I think he was in favour of self rule with joint ownership.

Keeps the argies happy keeps the falklanders happy!

You know that island only had relevance when you had to round the horn, it was practically impossible 7 months of the year!

The Panama canal ended its relevance, it's 12-16 degrees all year round wind swept and not very hospitable..... Until somebody went there she blows.... Coincidental, could be

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *vsnikkiTV/TS
over a year ago

Limavady

"Actually I think he was in favour of self rule with joint ownership.

Keeps the argies happy keeps the falklanders happy!

You know that island only had relevance when you had to round the horn, it was practically impossible 7 months of the year!

The Panama canal ended its relevance, it's 12-16 degrees all year round wind swept and not very hospitable..... Until somebody went there she blows.... Coincidental, could be

If you think it would keep the islanders happy, you're wrong. Why would it? I believe they own themselves and over 98% of islanders consider themselves British and choose to have no connection with Argentina. Should France cede joint ownership to Germany because they once were invaded

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Actually I think he was in favour of self rule with joint ownership.

Keeps the argies happy keeps the falklanders happy!

You know that island only had relevance when you had to round the horn, it was practically impossible 7 months of the year!

The Panama canal ended its relevance, it's 12-16 degrees all year round wind swept and not very hospitable..... Until somebody went there she blows.... Coincidental, could be

You know that joint ownership means they can remain British passport holders! And still have self rule, which they currently have

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Fab posts all

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Actually I think he was in favour of self rule with joint ownership.

Keeps the argies happy keeps the falklanders happy!

You know that island only had relevance when you had to round the horn, it was practically impossible 7 months of the year!

The Panama canal ended its relevance, it's 12-16 degrees all year round wind swept and not very hospitable..... Until somebody went there she blows.... Coincidental, could be

You know that joint ownership means they can remain British passport holders! And still have self rule, which they currently have"
I have duel nationality as I served seven years in the French legion have never used it tho

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Actually I think he was in favour of self rule with joint ownership.

Keeps the argies happy keeps the falklanders happy!

You know that island only had relevance when you had to round the horn, it was practically impossible 7 months of the year!

The Panama canal ended its relevance, it's 12-16 degrees all year round wind swept and not very hospitable..... Until somebody went there she blows.... Coincidental, could be

You know that joint ownership means they can remain British passport holders! And still have self rule, which they currently have I have duel nationality as I served seven years in the French legion have never used it tho "
.

Well if you ever fancy French Guyana they never ceded it unlike the British and the Dutch, who had British and Dutch citizens living there and were happy and content being British and Dutch but ceded it back to Suriname

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Very true but the swamps not worth much

^^^

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Very true but the swamps not worth much

^^^"
.

So I hear, although I also suspect that should oil ever be discovered anywhere remotely close to it... There'll soon discover that everybody in Suriname was happy to be British and always want to remain that way...

Like the folks in Diego Garcia

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Crying laughing @ this

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *vsnikkiTV/TS
over a year ago

Limavady

"Very true but the swamps not worth much

^^^.

Like the folks in Diego Garcia

British Guinea became Guyana. Suriname is a different country. My point about the Falklands is why should they have to have anything to do with Argentina? It doesn't really matter because the Labour party has just made themselves unelectable

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

OP, my fwb comes from the Falklands.

If you think that the Islanders would be happy to accept joint ownership then you are seriously deluded. They hate the Argentinians and wish to remain as they are, with a passion.

When did you last hear of a referendum result of over 98%?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *vsnikkiTV/TS
over a year ago

Limavady

"OP, my fwb comes from the Falklands.

If you think that the Islanders would be happy to accept joint ownership then you are seriously deluded. They hate the Argentinians and wish to remain as they are, with a passion.

When did you last hear of a referendum result of over 98%?"

I don't think there can be a country that is less likely, to accept anything Argentinian, than the Falklands. Quite rightly they detest a country that invaded and mistreated them. Even Chile would be happier to accept joint Argentinian sovereignty!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"OP, my fwb comes from the Falklands.

If you think that the Islanders would be happy to accept joint ownership then you are seriously deluded. They hate the Argentinians and wish to remain as they are, with a passion.

When did you last hear of a referendum result of over 98%?

I hate violence in any form. I suspect however that any visitor to the Falklands suggesting joint ownership would find themselves rather unwelcome, very quickly. The Islanders are fiercely anti-Argentinian.

And, no, it is hardly surprising. I have been told what the families were put through during the invasion. Not nice.

While I welcome Mr Corbyn's pacifist approach, this one will haunt him. I think he would do best to avoid the Falklands as a holiday destination unless he fancies a swim with the penguins.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *vsnikkiTV/TS
over a year ago

Limavady

"OP, my fwb comes from the Falklands.

If you think that the Islanders would be happy to accept joint ownership then you are seriously deluded. They hate the Argentinians and wish to remain as they are, with a passion.

When did you last hear of a referendum result of over 98%?

And, no, it is hardly surprising. I have been told what the families were put through during the invasion. Not nice.

While I welcome Mr Corbyn's pacifist approach, this one will haunt him. I think he would do best to avoid the Falklands as a holiday destination unless he fancies a swim with the penguins."

Oh they wouldn't mind him just paddling. On one of the beaches that's still mined!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"OP, my fwb comes from the Falklands.

If you think that the Islanders would be happy to accept joint ownership then you are seriously deluded. They hate the Argentinians and wish to remain as they are, with a passion.

When did you last hear of a referendum result of over 98%?

That's the thing with conflict resolution... People don't get what they want!

There's sections of the northern Irish community that weren't happy with the settlement.

Both parties have to give a little, the falklanders keep their self control, the Argentinians get joint ownership and they live with it.... Or you just keep fighting forever and a day!

These are things were going to have to live with, like Israelis will have to and Palestinians and Syrians and Kurdish and Russians and Irish!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"OP, my fwb comes from the Falklands.

If you think that the Islanders would be happy to accept joint ownership then you are seriously deluded. They hate the Argentinians and wish to remain as they are, with a passion.

When did you last hear of a referendum result of over 98%?

That's the thing with conflict resolution... People don't get what they want!

There's sections of the northern Irish community that weren't happy with the settlement.

Both parties have to give a little, the falklanders keep their self control, the Argentinians get joint ownership and they live with it.... Or you just keep fighting forever and a day!

These are things were going to have to live with, like Israelis will have to and Palestinians and Syrians and Kurdish and Russians and Irish!

You know what, OP? You cannot force "conflict resolution" on an unwilling participant. As far as the Falkland Islanders are concerned, the matter has been resolved. The Argentinians invaded and were repelled. Why would they want to enter into any form of resolution?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock

"OP, my fwb comes from the Falklands.

If you think that the Islanders would be happy to accept joint ownership then you are seriously deluded. They hate the Argentinians and wish to remain as they are, with a passion.

When did you last hear of a referendum result of over 98%?

That's the thing with conflict resolution... People don't get what they want!

There's sections of the northern Irish community that weren't happy with the settlement.

Both parties have to give a little, the falklanders keep their self control, the Argentinians get joint ownership and they live with it.... Or you just keep fighting forever and a day!

These are things were going to have to live with, like Israelis will have to and Palestinians and Syrians and Kurdish and Russians and Irish!

The issue has been resolved and the referendum result only reinforced that resolution.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *arry247Couple
over a year ago

Wakefield

Possibly but I shudder to think what might have come to pass if we had restricted our involvement to defending our own coastline..

It's Semantics, who knows?!

OP, while I too think war is invoked far too easily and often on false pretences, my response was not merely semantic.

What is more to the point what would have happened to the UK and indeed to Euroupe if the Americans had decided to only protect their coastline.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *vsnikkiTV/TS
over a year ago

Limavady

[Removed by poster at 17/09/15 17:03:16]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *vsnikkiTV/TS
over a year ago

Limavady

"OP, my fwb comes from the Falklands.

If you think that the Islanders would be happy to accept joint ownership then you are seriously deluded. They hate the Argentinians and wish to remain as they are, with a passion.

When did you last hear of a referendum result of over 98%?

That's the thing with conflict resolution... People don't get what they want!

There's sections of the northern Irish community that weren't happy with the settlement.

Both parties have to give a little, the falklanders keep their self control, the Argentinians get joint ownership and they live with it.... Or you just keep fighting forever and a day!

These are things were going to have to live with, like Israelis will have to and Palestinians and Syrians and Kurdish and Russians and Irish!

Why should the Falklands concede anything? They were attacked with NO provocation. Why should violence work?

As regards N Ireland. Compromise that was forced on all sides has left nobody happy and despite what you may believe, terrorism and intimidation happens the majority of days. Personally I believe full scale violence will break out before the end of the decade.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock

Possibly but I shudder to think what might have come to pass if we had restricted our involvement to defending our own coastline..

It's Semantics, who knows?!

OP, while I too think war is invoked far too easily and often on false pretences, my response was not merely semantic.

What is more to the point what would have happened to the UK and indeed to Euroupe if the Americans had decided to only protect their coastline."

We would all be talking in German now on this forum.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland

"OP, my fwb comes from the Falklands.

If you think that the Islanders would be happy to accept joint ownership then you are seriously deluded. They hate the Argentinians and wish to remain as they are, with a passion.

When did you last hear of a referendum result of over 98%?

That's the thing with conflict resolution... People don't get what they want!

There's sections of the northern Irish community that weren't happy with the settlement.

Both parties have to give a little, the falklanders keep their self control, the Argentinians get joint ownership and they live with it.... Or you just keep fighting forever and a day!

These are things were going to have to live with, like Israelis will have to and Palestinians and Syrians and Kurdish and Russians and Irish!

Excellent OP and I also second this.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

And OP, Smedley Butler was undoubtedly a colourful character but I have no idea why you call on him as a justification for your beliefs.

By his own admission, he was somewhat flawed. Why were his later convictions correct and his younger ones so misconceived?

You call upon his decorations as a justification but those were gained in the very battles that you decry. Odd.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"And OP, Smedley Butler was undoubtedly a colourful character but I have no idea why you call on him as a justification for your beliefs.

By his own admission, he was somewhat flawed. Why were his later convictions correct and his younger ones so misconceived?

You call upon his decorations as a justification but those were gained in the very battles that you decry. Odd."
.

Firstly its not just "a belief" there's alot of evidence to suggest war is a racket!

Secondly I recalled reading butlers book from my youth, I used it as a point that, while I as a green party member may be shot down for holding such thoughts, it's hard to shoot down a man that's been there and got the T-shirt, on that point I would suggest his experiences in the armed services is what set his judgement!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"OP, my fwb comes from the Falklands.

If you think that the Islanders would be happy to accept joint ownership then you are seriously deluded. They hate the Argentinians and wish to remain as they are, with a passion.

When did you last hear of a referendum result of over 98%?

That's the thing with conflict resolution... People don't get what they want!

There's sections of the northern Irish community that weren't happy with the settlement.

Both parties have to give a little, the falklanders keep their self control, the Argentinians get joint ownership and they live with it.... Or you just keep fighting forever and a day!

These are things were going to have to live with, like Israelis will have to and Palestinians and Syrians and Kurdish and Russians and Irish!

Why should the Falklands concede anything? They were attacked with NO provocation. Why should violence work?

"
.

You say that as if I've no idea about Irish terrorism, as a child of Irish catholic refugees I can tell you that's not the case!.

I know that resolution holds no brilliant fantastic answers... It's not meant to, if there was such a thing, it would have been used but it hasn't, so sooner or later people have to compromise and have something that's not there ideal, but is better than what they had, you seem to be suggesting that the best solution is give them all the weapons and let the best side win?.... Hate to tell you this but, it's been done and doesn't work, hence the world's problems with conflict resolution

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *vsnikkiTV/TS
over a year ago

Limavady

"OP, my fwb comes from the Falklands.

If you think that the Islanders would be happy to accept joint ownership then you are seriously deluded. They hate the Argentinians and wish to remain as they are, with a passion.

When did you last hear of a referendum result of over 98%?

That's the thing with conflict resolution... People don't get what they want!

There's sections of the northern Irish community that weren't happy with the settlement.

Both parties have to give a little, the falklanders keep their self control, the Argentinians get joint ownership and they live with it.... Or you just keep fighting forever and a day!

These are things were going to have to live with, like Israelis will have to and Palestinians and Syrians and Kurdish and Russians and Irish!

Why should the Falklands concede anything? They were attacked with NO provocation. Why should violence work?

You say that as if I've no idea about Irish terrorism, as a child of Irish catholic refugees I can tell you that's not the case!.

Can you give me an example of where compromise has settled a conflict? There must be one as you advocate it but I can't actually think of one.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else.

That's not really the best thinking as it ignores all stratagy

One defending our coastline requires a blue water navy as our cost includes the Falklands on the other side of the world.

Second if you can only defend your coast with your brown water navy hoe do you stop someone sitting in the Atlantic cutting off rhe shipping or sitting in continental Europe and bombarding you with missiles?

Being only able to defend yourself means you can never stop an attack merely bear it.

You can't counter attack you can't remove your enemy all you can do is beat back each attack until you fail

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

Just as well we have Trident boats, eh?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Im avoid politic debate,s

But all I want to say is ...

Our boys from the uk

N.i. Scotland. Wales and England are trained to defend us...

They go to war based on what our goverment deems to be vital to keep us safe...

We may no agree with the reasons why our boys are sent away..

BUT THERE OUR BOYS AM IM PROUD OF THEM !

It just a fucking crying disgrace OUR goverment dont provide them properly what they need when at war and dont provide them what they need when they come home injured !!!!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Just as well we have Trident boats, eh?"

You think we would survive the all out nuclear war an unexpected missile launch would cause?

We wanted to replace the nukes on some trident with just a solid lump of metal or concrete and use them as a rapid precise conventional weapon (coming back from orbit provides enough energy not to need explosives) but it was scrapped because it old likely send everyone mental when they detected a potential nuclear launch not knowing where it's going.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"OP, my fwb comes from the Falklands.

If you think that the Islanders would be happy to accept joint ownership then you are seriously deluded. They hate the Argentinians and wish to remain as they are, with a passion.

When did you last hear of a referendum result of over 98%?

That's the thing with conflict resolution... People don't get what they want!

There's sections of the northern Irish community that weren't happy with the settlement.

Both parties have to give a little, the falklanders keep their self control, the Argentinians get joint ownership and they live with it.... Or you just keep fighting forever and a day!

These are things were going to have to live with, like Israelis will have to and Palestinians and Syrians and Kurdish and Russians and Irish!

Why should the Falklands concede anything? They were attacked with NO provocation. Why should violence work?

You say that as if I've no idea about Irish terrorism, as a child of Irish catholic refugees I can tell you that's not the case!.

Can you give me an example of where compromise has settled a conflict? There must be one as you advocate it but I can't actually think of one."
.

To be honest with you, very few

There's minor successors like the cold war or the Cuban crises but most resolution only comes about after we've kicked fuck out of each other, I mean nearly all wars end with a treaty! And that in itself is a resolution agreement.

Of course that gets back to butlers point, that war pays and peace doesn't!.... Of course war pays big money but it costs fortunes in lost lives, lost parents life long injuries, mental illness.

To imagine that there's no solution to Israel/Palestine or catholic/protestant Ireland without one side being driven into the sea and murdering everyone is quite frankly 19th century thinking, there is solutions that most ordinary people would be happy with but there will be die hards who refuse no matter what!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *opinovMan
over a year ago

Point Nemo, Cumbria

Can you give me an example of where compromise has settled a conflict? There must be one as you advocate it but I can't actually think of one.."

The first and, to a lesser degree, second Intifada. The Yom Kippur was and subsequent Camp David agreement between Israel and Egypt regarding the Sinai. The Korean war (38th parallel, etc.). NI troubles.

I agree those compromises didn't really resolve them for once and for all, as much as put a lid on them for the time being - and are very much the minority where the a conflict which already has its own momentun. However, that has been very much down to certain individuals and their personalities rather than any impossibility of peace through negotiation. Where a conflict hasn't attained a level of maturity (not really the word I'm looking for) or where a certain Rubicon has not yet been crossed, there is a great deal of scope for compromise as part of a negotiated settlement - indeed, it's essential. History is stuffed absolutely full of examples which most people are unaware of because they were never allowed to reach the point of conflict... so they disappeared into obscurity or are labelled as irrelevant.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *opinovMan
over a year ago

Point Nemo, Cumbria

^^ Sorry for the typos - I'm on my phone.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *vsnikkiTV/TS
over a year ago

Limavady

Can you give me an example of where compromise has settled a conflict? There must be one as you advocate it but I can't actually think of one..

Don't know about the intifada at all. Yom Kippur was an imposed compromise with American influence and financial telling Israel to stop. Koreans are still at war. NI imposed compromise is making the situation worse in the long run. Communities are becoming even more polarized and we have political stalemate. I do accept that you had acknowledged this and I agree that compromise has probably avoided conflict in the short term; I just doubt that apeasement ever works in the long term.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

"Just as well we have Trident boats, eh?

You think we would survive the all out nuclear war an unexpected missile launch would cause?

............"

I don't believe there'll BE an unexpected missile launch. Trident's role is as a deterrent.

A thought - do we really need to have a deterrent or do we just need our enemies to believe we have a deterrent and, if the latter, how do we keep the secret?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread