British soldiers sexually abused us, claim Iraqis

[mozr]

Someone has gone to defcon one. Hmm, okay...

I had more or less the same discussion with an American a few months before the Abu Graib story broke, and he dismissed the idea of wrong-doing with the same empty, rhetorical bluster as you do, so I'll give you the same advice I gave him and suggest that you think of it less as navel gazing and more as moving beyond the prevailing daddy-is-the-bestest-daddy-in-the-world mindset that leads so many to blindly support whatever the home team deems acceptable behavior.

Where did I dismiss the idea that there is no wrong doing whatsoever? Go on, please quote me. We are talking about two things here. My assertion that wrongdoing in the British forces happens and is in the minority, and yours, which is a suggestion (and that's all it is because you have no evidence) that the majority of British armed forces are guilty of wrong doing.

Also, Abu Ghraib whilst a stain on the character of the west, is incomparable to what has happened to western hostages, and captive soldiers. It was also in the minority, not the majority.

Allow me to explain why you have no evidence for your 'majority' question.

[...]but the Pentagon recently released a reported which suggested that as many as 1 in 3 women in the military have been the victim of rape and other forms of sexual abuse. I don't know what the numbers are for the British army, but when you look at their recruitment policies, I wouldn't expect them to be much different.

So. You have heard of a Pentagon report that 'suggests' something, and that rape is lumped in with other forms of sexual abuse, and you transpose that American report and blame our soldiers for its findings.

We often hear about the kind of less than desirable people that are being recruited, because it's difficult to meet recruitment targets these days, and it's not just the physically unfit who get a pass. I know a guy whose son was diagnosed with some kind of bipolar disorder a few years ago, who has a history of violent and threatening behavior and a general problem with authority. He's in the army now. This happens all the time, and it's perfectly clear that these are not the best and the brightest.

So we have some anecdotal stories, and assumptions.

The reason I think you are a navel gazer is because you only seem preoccupied with western transgressions. You have the usual issue (that a lot of lazy left wing critics have) of considering eastern, asian, and african countries as noble savages, who only reacts with evil when evil is thrust upon them. Ignoring history, you seek to excuse anything that the 'other' powers do, always using the same reasons for their behaviour: imperialism, oil, religious wars, the cold war, the CIA, etc.

But like I've said at least twice throughout the thread, it was never merely an issue of just these latest allegations, which I genuinely hope are proven to be false. I've never suggested the majority of the military are rapists, but if they share your it's-about-power-and-that's-ok view, then they're bad eggs, period.

33 allegations and you then question the entire army? You make your bed mate.

But it's never been an issue of western way of life vs Shariah law. That's just another one of these nonsensical "they hate our freedom/way of life" diversions your kind resort to when your argument hits the wall, and which all too often (and a few beers later) leads to the heart of the matter: "we should just nuke the place".

If you do not see that there is a clash of civilisations here then you are blind. Is Iran seeking to gain a Nuclear weapon because America made it by being nasty to them? Or are you so relativistic that you condone Iran's nuclear ambitions? You know, that country that is sitting on the biggest dinosaur graveyard in the world, seeking alternative energy.

I am an interventionist. If someone is getting mugged across the street I help them. If a country asks for our help (Kuwait, Bosnia, Afghanistan - during the Russian invasion) I think we should respond.

I know you think I am a flag waving jingoist but you are wrong. I am an atheist, a staunch anti-royalist, and a libertarian. I just happen to believe that the west is a force for good in this world. Not completely, not perfectly, but a force for good nonetheless.

I suggest reading Foucault, and maybe some Amis, and Hitchens (Christopher), to glean my position on the issue surrounding power, global politics, and the insidious nature of radical factions of Islam.

In a perfect world, we would all live happily ever after. The world is not perfect.

 

[señor ding dong]

Someone has gone to defcon one. Hmm, okay...

And you seem to have just gone deaf, because I'm apparently having to repeat myself. Ah well, let's roll...

We are talking about two things here. My assertion that wrongdoing in the British forces happens and is in the minority, and yours, which is a suggestion (and that's all it is because you have no evidence) that the majority of British armed forces are guilty of wrong doing.

I think you're overreacting, because I'd barely even call it a suggestion. I was articulating a concern based on a number of red flags, and as I said, being a rapist or a torturer is by no means where I draw the line between good and bad. The it's-about-power-and-that's-ok mentality is arguably just as bad. Raping or torturing a person is terrible, but playing an active role in what at the most conservative estimate has been the killing of 100.000 civilians in the name of power is equally reprehensible, if not more so.

Allow me to explain why you have no evidence for your 'majority' question.

But, again, I don't need evidence to ask a question. You, on the other hand, still need evidence to be able to dismiss that question. Understand, I didn't ask the question to rile you or your fellow troop-huggers, and although it can be done, I'm perfectly well aware of how unfair it is to ask you to prove a negative, but that wasn't the point. The point was that your absolute dismissiveness suggested it's not something you were even prepared to consider. Though I will give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you thought the issue was merely about rape and torture. In which case I'd agree that it seems unlikely that the majority of the military would engage in that sort of behavior.

The reason I think you are a navel gazer is because you only seem preoccupied with western transgressions. You have the usual issue (that a lot of lazy left wing critics have) of considering eastern, asian, and african countries as noble savages...

I'm going to stop you there. I always find it amusing that right-wingers assume I'm a leftie, and lefties assume I'm a right-winger. It appears to be a common trait of either side's lunatic fringe to assume the with-us-or-against-us mentality. Now granted, I have occasionally used the term savages about our supposed enemies, but rarely in the same sentence as the word "noble". As a general rule, I have very little respect for those who let fairy tales and fantasy rule their lives, and nothing but disdain for those who use such things as an excuse to main and kill innocent people, or anyone else for that matter. However, just because the supposed enemy is bad doesn't automatically mean we're good. Think of it as Peter Andre vs Katie Price. It's just different degrees of bad trying to hide behind layers of silicone and tanning cream.

33 allegations and you then question the entire army? You make your bed mate.

Again, I specifically said my views were not based merely on these latest allegations, which I hope are untrue, nor were my concerns limited to the supposed enemy. As I mentioned, I know people in the military, some who have served for a very long time, and who feel that things have never been worse, in large part due to falling recruitment standards, and I know women who tell the exact same stories as we hear from the Americans about it not being safe to shower alone or to find yourself in certain areas without escort. Somehow I don't see the UK government or military being nearly as forthcoming about looking into this as the Americans have been. Those navel-gazing Yanks, eh? There's certainly not enough evidence to draw any kind of outright conclusions, but there are alarm bells going off all over the place. Maybe it's all false alarms, that would be nice, but I would hope that you could at least appreciate that when we're not sceptical and don't ask questions, it's really just the same as religion. Blind faith.

If you do not see that there is a clash of civilisations here then you are blind.

And if you think invading Iraq was a question of staving off the threat of Shariah law in the UK, you're... well, original, if nothing else.

Is Iran seeking to gain a Nuclear weapon because America made it by being nasty to them? Or are you so relativistic that you condone Iran's nuclear ambitions? You know, that country that is sitting on the biggest dinosaur graveyard in the world, seeking alternative energy.

You want to invade Iran now?

I am an interventionist. If someone is getting mugged across the street I help them. If a country asks for our help (Kuwait, Bosnia, Afghanistan - during the Russian invasion) I think we should respond.

But that's different from it's-about-power-and-that's-ok, isn't it? And Iraq wasn't attacking or even threatening anyone. Both the US and UK said as much a year or so before the place became a strategically convenient target.

I know you think I am a flag waving jingoist but you are wrong. I am an atheist, a staunch anti-royalist, and a libertarian. I just happen to believe that the west is a force for good in this world. Not completely, not perfectly, but a force for good nonetheless.

Not if we keep recruiting sociopaths. It's no use having the best of intentions if you send thugs and criminals to carry them out. And there's nothing noble about it's-about-power-and-that's-ok.

I suggest reading Foucault, and maybe some Amis, and Hitchens (Christopher), to glean my position on the issue surrounding power, global politics, and the insidious nature of radical factions of Islam.

I suggest reading my posts to gleam mine. And you're absolutely right about radical islam, but the same goes for radical elements of any belief system. I think there used to be a rule against discussion of religious subjects around here, though, so I'll leave it at that pending further clarification.

 

[witchy]

Why are we taking prisioners anyway?

Kill them all.

Fucking Dark aged educated filth.

KILL EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

 

[mozr]

And you seem to have just gone deaf, because I'm apparently having to repeat myself. Ah well, let's roll...

I think you're overreacting, because I'd barely even call it a suggestion. I was articulating a concern based on a number of red flags, and as I said, being a rapist or a torturer is by no means where I draw the line between good and bad.

The 'red flags' as I have already explained are a report by a different country on their own soldiers, and a couple of anecdotes. But you don't want to defend that, that is fine.

The it's-about-power-and-that's-ok mentality is arguably just as bad.

Everything is about power. I am not condoning it as much as observing what has been a constant since the dawn of time. You argument would be false. Would you have preferred to let Iraq invade and occupy Kuwait, as long as your moral conscience isn't tainted by the death of innocents? I am trying to get a handle on whether you are a pacifist or not.

Raping or torturing a person is terrible, but playing an active role in what at the most conservative estimate has been the killing of 100.000 civilians in the name of power is equally reprehensible, if not more so.

Moral equivalency again. You imply that the west is as immoral as the perceived enemies of the west, if not worse. No shades of grey, no nuance, no larger understanding of the clusterfuck we call the earth. We are as bad as the terroists, ok fine.

But, again, I don't need evidence to ask a question. You, on the other hand, still need evidence to be able to dismiss that question. Understand, I didn't ask the question to rile you or your fellow troop-huggers, and although it can be done, I'm perfectly well aware of how unfair it is to ask you to prove a negative, but that wasn't the point.

You need evidence for it to be a relevant question. Otherwise your question (are the majority of soldiers in the UK army committing immoral acts?) is no more valid than my 'is your father a rapist?' question.

Thank you for not asking me to prove a negative. In this case for sure I can not prove that the majority of troops aren't doing something.

The point was that your absolute dismissiveness suggested it's not something you were even prepared to consider. [/.quote]

Oh I have considered it alright, just not on here. As there is no evidence to suggest that the majority of troops are committing heinous acts I do not have to consider the question relevant. Just as I do not have to consider the questions 'kisses and hugs make the world spin', 'Jim Davidson invented mountains', 'decaffeinated coffee can power a family sized car for eight million miles' etc. relevant.

Though I will give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you thought the issue was merely about rape and torture. In which case I'd agree that it seems unlikely that the majority of the military would engage in that sort of behavior.

I merely used rape and torture (under the umbrella of 'sexual abuse') as an example, because that was the only evidence proffered (that was not anecdotal). Also your question 'are they?' referred directly to my assertion that the allegations (if sexual abuse and torture) made against the UK Army are in the minority.

I'm going to stop you there. I always find it amusing that right-wingers assume I'm a leftie, and lefties assume I'm a right-winger. It appears to be a common trait of either side's lunatic fringe to assume the with-us-or-against-us mentality.

I never said you were left wing. I merely explained that you seem preoccupied with western transgressions, and that you appear to define the 'other' as a peaceful fun loving lot, who would live happily ever after if it was not for us, which is a trait of a left wing thinker.

Now granted, I have occasionally used the term savages about our supposed enemies, but rarely in the same sentence as the word "noble".

The noble savage is a well known and used concept throughout history.

As a general rule, I have very little respect for those who let fairy tales and fantasy rule their lives, and nothing but disdain for those who use such things as an excuse to main and kill innocent people, or anyone else for that matter. However, just because the supposed enemy is bad doesn't automatically mean we're good. Think of it as Peter Andre vs Katie Price. It's just different degrees of bad trying to hide behind layers of silicone and tanning cream.

There you go with your navel gazing. That sort of relativistic thinking ultimately leads to the eradication of 'good' and 'evil'.

Again, I specifically said my views were not based merely on these latest allegations, which I hope are untrue, nor were my concerns limited to the supposed enemy. As I mentioned, I know people in the military, some who have served for a very long time, and who feel that things have never been worse, in large part due to falling recruitment standards, and I know women who tell the exact same stories as we hear from the Americans about it not being safe to shower alone or to find yourself in certain areas without escort. Somehow I don't see the UK government or military being nearly as forthcoming about looking into this as the Americans have been. Those navel-gazing Yanks, eh? There's certainly not enough evidence to draw any kind of outright conclusions, but there are alarm bells going off all over the place. Maybe it's all false alarms, that would be nice, but I would hope that you could at least appreciate that when we're not sceptical and don't ask questions, it's really just the same as religion. Blind faith.

I had no problem with you asking the question. I saw the question as an irrelevance so I answered it quickly, 'no'. It was you who started this, asking me to evidence my opinion, of as you so rightly point out, a negative.

And if you think invading Iraq was a question of staving off the threat of Shariah law in the UK, you're... well, original, if nothing else.

I never said that. But there is a move by Islamic fundamentalists to establish a new caliphate. You as I do, do not want to be ruled by a theocracy, nor do we want to see that theocracy increase and take over other people in countries adjacent to where the theocracies already lie.

You want to invade Iran now?

Hopefully not. If they keep trying to make the bomb, it is inevitable. We are talking about a leader who wants to eradicate Israel first chance he gets. Israel, let alone the west, will not let that happen.

Obama should have blown on the embers of the demonstrators earlier this year. Instead he stayed out of it, and they were dispersed/beaten/killed.

But that's different from it's-about-power-and-that's-ok, isn't it? And Iraq wasn't attacking or even threatening anyone. Both the US and UK said as much a year or so before the place became a strategically convenient target.

How many resolutions did you want him to break? I take it from this that you wish Saddam was still in power, and killing the kurds. Great!

Not if we keep recruiting sociopaths.

Any evidence that we are recruiting sociopaths? No? ok.

If you were to more tentatively suggest that as we are fighting a war on two fronts, the quality of recruitment is suffering because of the need for more and more troops, I would be with you. But no.

You assert that we need to investigate whether the majority of soliders are in some way mentally defective and are carrying out immoral acts.

You are therefore, irrational.

It's no use having the best of intentions if you send thugs and criminals to carry them out. And there's nothing noble about it's-about-power-and-that's-ok.

Already answered.

I suggest reading my posts to gleam mine. And you're absolutely right about radical islam, but the same goes for radical elements of any belief system.

Nearly! You nearly made a judgment about another culture, without automatically criticizing your own. Of course there has been some horrendous atrocities committed under Christian umbrella. But, who do we have to worry about at the moment, Radical Islam, or Doris the flower arranger at the local parish?

I think there used to be a rule against discussion of religious subjects around here, though, so I'll leave it at that pending further clarification.

There was a suggestion I think, but it never took. You can't post news which relates to culture, religion, politics, and then not expect anyone to comment on it.

Besides, I am having fun. Aren't you?

 

[nara]

It's nice to see some intelligent reasoned debate here (* and ******* excepted).

Makes a nice change. :Clap:

 

[mozr]

* was pissed...

again.

 

[nara]

* was pissed...

again.

...as a newt.

 

[señor ding dong]

The 'red flags' as I have already explained are a report by a different country on their own soldiers, and a couple of anecdotes. But you don't want to defend that, that is fine.

I don't need to defend it, but I have explained it.

You may not see, or may not want to see the red flags, but I have a very good track record about these things, and experience has taught me not to ignore my Spidey-sense when it starts tingling. Certain people have been as dismissive as you about other questions, for example whether or not troops have adequate armor and equipment, and some would consider the evidence that they don't to be "anecdotal" or about "scoring political points".

Everything is about power. I am not condoning it as much as observing what has been a constant since the dawn of time.

"This war is about power, but I do not necessarily see a problem with that" sounds like a thumbs up to me.

You argument would be false. Would you have preferred to let Iraq invade and occupy Kuwait, as long as your moral conscience isn't tainted by the death of innocents?

Iraq 2.0 was not about Kuwait. Even Kuwait didn't think so.

I am trying to get a handle on whether you are a pacifist or not.

My general view is that labels are just a way to simplify and dumb down complexities, but in reference to your own examples, using a reasonable amount of force to help someone who's getting mugged is perfectly fine. Killing 8 bystanders in the process is not. And you'd be completely dishonest if you were to suggest the Iraq invasion was about helping someone who was getting mugged.

Moral equivalency again. You imply that the west is as immoral as the perceived enemies of the west, if not worse. No shades of grey, no nuance, no larger understanding of the clusterfuck we call the earth. We are as bad as the terroists, ok fine.

You may not like my shades of grey, but drawing a line between innocent civilians and radical elements seems considerably more nuanced than "nuke them all", "with us or against us", etc.

You need evidence for it to be a relevant question. Otherwise your question (are the majority of soldiers in the UK army committing immoral acts?) is no more valid than my 'is your father a rapist?' question.

Nonsense. My question was based on experience, trends, and indeed anecdotal evidence, which is more than enough to get me past reasonable doubt. You, on the other hand, don't know the first thing about your suggested subject, so there's a considerable difference between the two questions. I will generously assume it was a misguided attempt to provoke an emotional response, and that you're not irrational enough to think it was a relevant like-for-like comparison.

Oh I have considered it alright, just not on here. As there is no evidence to suggest that the majority of troops are committing heinous acts I do not have to consider the question relevant.

You think the question of whether or not a majority of the British military subscribes to your it's-about-power-and-that's-ok view is completely unreasonable?

I merely used rape and torture (under the umbrella of 'sexual abuse') as an example, because that was the only evidence proffered (that was not anecdotal). Also your question 'are they?' referred directly to my assertion that the allegations (if sexual abuse and torture) made against the UK Army are in the minority.

As I said, I can understand what might have caused the initial confusion, but I've clarified the point at least a half dozen times throughout the thread, so I don't really think it's my fault if you haven't gotten it yet.

I never said you were left wing. I merely explained that you seem preoccupied with western transgressions, and that you appear to define the 'other' as a peaceful fun loving lot, who would live happily ever...

I'm quite sure I did no such thing.

There you go with your navel gazing. That sort of relativistic thinking ultimately leads to the eradication of 'good' and 'evil'.

Relativity is an important component of understanding our own moral deficiencies. Anyone who thinks of themselves as purely good are more likely to do bad. Improvement comes from the recognition of flaws. It's nuanced stuff, though. You wouldn't like it.

I had no problem with you asking the question. I saw the question as an irrelevance so I answered it quickly, 'no'. It was you who started this, asking me to evidence my opinion, of as you so rightly point out, a negative.

Think of it more as an invitation to expand on your view.

I never said that. But there is a move by Islamic fundamentalists to establish a new caliphate. You as I do, do not want to be ruled by a theocracy, nor do we want to see that theocracy increase and take over other people in countries adjacent to where the theocracies already lie.

Indeed, but that still doesn't have anything to do with the Iraq invasion, and the idea of stamping out religion through force is in essence no different from religious crusades themselves.

Hopefully not. If they keep trying to make the bomb, it is inevitable. We are talking about a leader who wants to eradicate Israel first chance he gets. Israel, let alone the west, will not let that happen.

Obama should have blown on the embers of the demonstrators earlier this year. Instead he stayed out of it, and they were dispersed/beaten/killed.

That I'd be more inclined to agree with.

How many resolutions did you want him to break? I take it from this that you wish Saddam was still in power, and killing the kurds. Great!

Oh, puh-lease. You and I both know that if those were genuinely the concerns that led to the Iraq invasion, there were far worse offenders and immediate threats that should have been dealt with before Saddam, who was hardly the Saddam of the early 90s. We may not agree on some of these things, but at least be honest. You were when you said it was about power.

If you were to more tentatively suggest that as we are fighting a war on two fronts, the quality of recruitment is suffering because of the need for more and more troops, I would be with you. But no.

Well, d'uh, that's obviously what's causing the drop in recruitment standards, since it's mostly the it's-about-power-and-that's-ok/nuke-em-all demographic that believe in the Iraq war these days.

You assert that we need to investigate whether the majority of soliders are in some way mentally defective and are carrying out immoral acts.

You are therefore, irrational.

There's absolutely nothing irrational about knowing why this war is being fought, or indeed by whom.

Nearly! You nearly made a judgment about another culture, without automatically criticizing your own.

I generally don't consider my own culture to represent an extremist view, which was what my comment was aimed at.

Of course there has been some horrendous atrocities committed under Christian umbrella. But, who do we have to worry about at the moment, Radical Islam, or Doris the flower arranger at the local parish?

... this is a trick question, right?

The perceived threat of radical islam is one thing, but it was certainly not, as you suggested, a case of fending off the threat of Shariah law in the UK. It was at best a misguided and expensive diversion from the real problem.

There was a suggestion I think, but it never took. You can't post news which relates to culture, religion, politics, and then not expect anyone to comment on it.

I agree. I don't think any topics should be off the table. I just wasn't sure what the latest ruling on that issue was.

Besides, I am having fun. Aren't you?

Certainly. It's far more engaging stuff than the usual "Can I download Nagra 3 to my iPhone" debates.

* was pissed...

again.

As per my "a few beers later" comment a few posts ago.

 

[langland]

What is this?
Typists r us?

 

[davidh]

What is this?
Typists r us?

more entertaining then the papers

and lots of truth

 

[jaffa]

This is an excellent debate and the 2 maain contributers have put their points across admirably...well done you 2.

I don't tend to get into topics which have not be proven, they are only allegations at the minute, I don't bury my head in the sand though and I believe their are bad eggs in every army, so why should people be surprised if the British army is any different.

I also believe that the vast majority of our armed forces are doing what is right, they don't choose where they serve, it is chosen for them.

I admire them and I believe their is no better army services in the world.

IF these allegations are proven to be true then they will be dealt with but its not mass murder, far more war crimes have been commited than flashing your tits to a prisoner.

 

[davidh]

, far more war crimes have been commited than flashing your tits to a prisoner.

i found the picture fookin discrasefull

 

[mozr]

I don't need to defend it, but I have explained it.

You may not see, or may not want to see the red flags, but I have a very good track record about these things, and experience has taught me not to ignore my Spidey-sense when it starts tingling. Certain people have been as dismissive as you about other questions, for example whether or not troops have adequate armor and equipment, and some would consider the evidence that they don't to be "anecdotal" or about "scoring political points".

"This war is about power, but I do not necessarily see a problem with that" sounds like a thumbs up to me.

Iraq 2.0 was not about Kuwait. Even Kuwait didn't think so.

My general view is that labels are just a way to simplify and dumb down complexities, but in reference to your own examples, using a reasonable amount of force to help someone who's getting mugged is perfectly fine. Killing 8 bystanders in the process is not. And you'd be completely dishonest if you were to suggest the Iraq invasion was about helping someone who was getting mugged.

You may not like my shades of grey, but drawing a line between innocent civilians and radical elements seems considerably more nuanced than "nuke them all", "with us or against us", etc.

Nonsense. My question was based on experience, trends, and indeed anecdotal evidence, which is more than enough to get me past reasonable doubt. You, on the other hand, don't know the first thing about your suggested subject, so there's a considerable difference between the two questions. I will generously assume it was a misguided attempt to provoke an emotional response, and that you're not irrational enough to think it was a relevant like-for-like comparison.

You think the question of whether or not a majority of the British military subscribes to your it's-about-power-and-that's-ok view is completely unreasonable?

As I said, I can understand what might have caused the initial confusion, but I've clarified the point at least a half dozen times throughout the thread, so I don't really think it's my fault if you haven't gotten it yet.

I'm quite sure I did no such thing.

Relativity is an important component of understanding our own moral deficiencies. Anyone who thinks of themselves as purely good are more likely to do bad. Improvement comes from the recognition of flaws. It's nuanced stuff, though. You wouldn't like it.

Think of it more as an invitation to expand on your view.

Indeed, but that still doesn't have anything to do with the Iraq invasion, and the idea of stamping out religion through force is in essence no different from religious crusades themselves.

That I'd be more inclined to agree with.

Oh, puh-lease. You and I both know that if those were genuinely the concerns that led to the Iraq invasion, there were far worse offenders and immediate threats that should have been dealt with before Saddam, who was hardly the Saddam of the early 90s. We may not agree on some of these things, but at least be honest. You were when you said it was about power.

Well, d'uh, that's obviously what's causing the drop in recruitment standards, since it's mostly the it's-about-power-and-that's-ok/nuke-em-all demographic that believe in the Iraq war these days.

There's absolutely nothing irrational about knowing why this war is being fought, or indeed by whom.

I generally don't consider my own culture to represent an extremist view, which was what my comment was aimed at.

... this is a trick question, right?

The perceived threat of radical islam is one thing, but it was certainly not, as you suggested, a case of fending off the threat of Shariah law in the UK. It was at best a misguided and expensive diversion from the real problem.

I agree. I don't think any topics should be off the table. I just wasn't sure what the latest ruling on that issue was.

Certainly. It's far more engaging stuff than the usual "Can I download Nagra 3 to my iPhone" debates.

As per my "a few beers later" comment a few posts ago.

Ok.

I think this has run its course.

I can see your position more clearly. We have both been guilty of stressing the extremes of our views for arguments sake, and probably got into the discussion on the wrong foot.

Your position appears to be:

You agree with intervention when it right to do so,

You believe the Iraq war 2.0 was not a just war,

You believe that as the war has progressed there has been an increase in war crimes, and a decrease in the quality of recruitment, leading to the reputation and actions of the British army suffering.

My position is:

I am an interventionist, and believe in pre-emptive intervention when the need arises,

I believe Iraq 2.0 was sold under false pretenses to the electorate, but also believe that there were and are fundamental righteous reasons to protect the middle east from the increase of Islamic fundamentalism (also we should have never left Iraq or Afghanistan, so we are making good on leaving them in the first place), as well as force (yes force our will!) our ideals on human rights onto those depots that do not agree,

I believe too that during any war, an army as an entity will suffer. I also understand that logistically as soldiers die, or retire, they need to be replaced, and as we are fighting a war on both fronts, this only exacerbates the integrity of the unit. BUT, I still posit that the British Army is the best in the world, and does a hellish job to the best of its ability. Its transgressions are committed by the minority. That minority should be dealt with according to the law.

Correct me if I misrepresent your position.

So, we disagree. Ultimately, We are not completely opposite in our thinking. I am not a right wing hawk, and you not a left wing loon.

Shake hands, walk away, live to argue another day, eh?

 

[Munkey]

We are not completely opposite in our thinking. I am not a right wing hawk, and you not a left wing loon.

You guys are so alike, you remind me of these fella's. Same outlook but with different persona's.

 

[mozr]

I wear the pants.

 

[señor ding dong]

Shake hands, walk away, live to argue another day, eh?

Oh, alright, then. If only to demonstrate the effectiveness of non-violent resolutions.

I think we may have inadvertently stumbled onto a model for world peace. I previously thought distributing ipods with the Muppet Show's "Manah Manah" song to all warring factions would do the trick, but now I'm thinking replacing every gun in the middle east with a keyboard might cause them to tire themselves into a diplomatic solution.

"<comedy middle eastern accent>Meh, so we h8 yor freedom, U embrace d gr8 Satan. letz shAk h&z, wlkz awA, live 2 blog NothA dA, eh? LOLZ!</comedy middle eastern accent>"