World Trade Center.

AfterSSE

War Hero
OSLO said:
AfterSSE, the problem with the "it's a good thing he's gone" kind of backwards justification is that it opens the door for pretty much any country to invade another because they don't like the leadership. Sure, there may be a "greater good" motive (and why not use it to go into Zimbabwe, North Korea, Burma, etc where we don't like the leadership), but what if, one day, we decide, say, that we don't much care for the Turkish leader, because of his Islamist background, or with Poland, because of their catholic leaders, or Tajikistan, because they have a leader who is plainly mad (I know, I know, he's dead, but bear with me). Or imagine that we have a leader that ignores his electorate, eliminates check and balances laws to give himself more power, who ignores his cabinet and takes the countries forces on adventurist expeditions to far off lands because his buddy (who is acting according to God's will, after all) says it's a good idea. Then what is to stop any country invading us (on a legal ground, not a practical level) in order to eliminate this bad influence?

THe utilitarian argument cannot be the primary means for international galavanting.

Nothing has really changed since the early times, ever play King of the Hill, it's always going to be the bestest or the one with the mostest that win out, or in reality a good group of lawyers, OJ was dead on guilty, but his lawyer talked the talk...as long as decisions are based upon legalities, there will always be grey areas, it's somewhat like the regs, sure for the cox'n i'ts cut and dried, however the rules and regulations are nothing more then guidelines and are there to be interpreted as best as possible, so just because it is written, doesn't nescessarily mean it's the "law", everything is open to interpretation, ordinary folk who listen to the news or read the papers could care less about the UN or International Law, only politicians need concern themselves with that stuff, and there in lies the problems..
 

jungle_jim

Lantern Swinger
CRYSTALTIPS said:
I visited where the World Trade Centre should have stood last year when i went to New York.

Theyve got a memorial area / museum next to the derelict site. I have never been so moved in all of my life, by the time you finish walking around the museum and looking at all the artefacts left behind no one has a dry eye.

The most touching moment is where you see the wall of photographs with people asking if anyone has seen this person, and old ID cards and bits and bobs that were all left behind.

My heart and soul goes out to all of those affected by 9/11. RIP.

we have just returned from a great trip to NYC and visisted this place, i must agree with you what a very strange place to be yet in a strange way an enjoyable experience (cannot think of the right way to describe it) having seen the place in person i still cannot even think how it must have been to be there on that terrible day. one thing that really got to me was a picture drawn by a 11 yesr old child. it was a picture split into 4 the 1st showed a drawing of the WTC, the next of one burning the 3rd of love hearts with wings the 4th showing these love hearts re-forming and binding together to remake the WTC.

i for one have re-newed in my heart that what we are all doing around the world will make it a better place and hopefully ensure that these bastards are never able to do something as terrible again
 

jungle_jim

Lantern Swinger
i cannot believe that a quick comment of a programme gets twisted into some anti war political debate FFS. i take it your we all happy to receive the pay packet at the end of the month yet question one of the most important taking by UK forces for several years. there is nothing better for memebrs of the armed forces to return to the UK from these hell holes only to see their counrty folk arguing about it been a waste of time and we should not have been there in the first place.
 

Bergen

ADC
Blood said:
True, so are they lying?
They must be right surely? To still be so adamantly sticking to their guns...This is bloody confusing and the answer seems to depends upon who you speak to and whats their political agenda. I dont think we will ever have an answer, unless you choose to believe one side or the other.

I tend towards the philosophy of Ockham's Razor.

If the invasion and subsequent occupation was legal or even quasi-legal then there would have been no requirement to spin the amount of lies and false evidence that Bubbleboy and The Bliar fabricated.

As long ago as 2003 senior US administration officials were freely admitting that the invasion of a sovereign nation was indeed illegal:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal


Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday November 20, 2003
The Guardian


International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.

But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable


RM
 

NZ_Bootneck

War Hero
If the WTC was the real reason for going to war, why are we not in Saudi Arabia, thats where most of the hi-jackers came from, oh maybe it's got something to do with tame/ friendly rulers not wanting to rock the boat.
NZB
 

Karma

War Hero
jungle_jim said:
.....i take it your we all happy to receive the pay packet at the end of the month yet question one of the most important taking by UK forces for several years.

So when did the DCI coming out banning people from having an opinion?

there is nothing better for memebrs of the armed forces to return to the UK from these hell holes only to see their counrty folk arguing about it been a waste of time and we should not have been there in the first place.

We were all aware of the legality debate immediately prior to Telic, it was going on prior to mission rehearsal and it went on right up to, and after, the commencement of the actual invasion.

One can reasonably disagree with the motivations for carrying out the action, yet still participate. We all made a risk assessment for our involvement, and I know of a couple of resignations and very quick departures. I'm sure some will accuse them of cowardice, but I'd tend to disagree.
 

jungle_jim

Lantern Swinger
Karma said:
jungle_jim said:
.....i take it your we all happy to receive the pay packet at the end of the month yet question one of the most important taking by UK forces for several years.

So when did the DCI coming out banning people from having an opinion?

there is nothing better for memebrs of the armed forces to return to the UK from these hell holes only to see their counrty folk arguing about it been a waste of time and we should not have been there in the first place.

We were all aware of the legality debate immediately prior to Telic, it was going on prior to mission rehearsal and it went on right up to, and after, the commencement of the actual invasion.

One can reasonably disagree with the motivations for carrying out the action, yet still participate. We all made a risk assessment for our involvement, and I know of a couple of resignations and very quick departures. I'm sure some will accuse them of cowardice, but I'd tend to disagree.

well if it isn`t cowardice then what was it, maybe happy to accept the pay until there is an increased risk with the job and a good chance they will deploy away from home so there is my excuse to leave. there has always been a risk from the middle east so debating that leaving as they are not able to fight muslims is a load of bollocks, if they felt that strong they shouldnt have joined in the first place.

at no point did anyone say you couldnt have an opinion????????? because i didnt yet you felt the need to quote. if you dont like what the job entails then leave. i guess you wont voice your opinions loud at the next public forum with 2 SL.
 

OSLO

War Hero
jungle_jim said:
Karma said:
jungle_jim said:
.....i take it your we all happy to receive the pay packet at the end of the month yet question one of the most important taking by UK forces for several years.

So when did the DCI coming out banning people from having an opinion?

there is nothing better for memebrs of the armed forces to return to the UK from these hell holes only to see their counrty folk arguing about it been a waste of time and we should not have been there in the first place.

We were all aware of the legality debate immediately prior to Telic, it was going on prior to mission rehearsal and it went on right up to, and after, the commencement of the actual invasion.

One can reasonably disagree with the motivations for carrying out the action, yet still participate. We all made a risk assessment for our involvement, and I know of a couple of resignations and very quick departures. I'm sure some will accuse them of cowardice, but I'd tend to disagree.

well if it isn`t cowardice then what was it, maybe happy to accept the pay until there is an increased risk with the job and a good chance they will deploy away from home so there is my excuse to leave. there has always been a risk from the middle east so debating that leaving as they are not able to fight muslims is a load of bollocks, if they felt that strong they shouldnt have joined in the first place.

at no point did anyone say you couldnt have an opinion????????? because i didnt yet you felt the need to quote. if you dont like what the job entails then leave. i guess you wont voice your opinions loud at the next public forum with 2 SL.

Keep you hat on, Popeye. Just because you take the Queen's shilling doesn't mean you have to agree with her Government at every turn. Speaking as one of the audience who was briefed at least 3 times by very senior officers about the fact that "there are WMDs in Iraq", that "they pose a risk to the UK" and that "the war is legal", and having gone in willingly, I now feel betrayed by the web of lies by our man in No 10 and his posse. The RN is not a bunch of automatons, and the leadership spends much time in justifying military actions to their people, if for no other reason that engaging their hearts and minds engaged their body. Of course, all in uniform will do as ordered (or face the disciplinary action justified in the circumstances), and we are well aware that we won't always agree with where our Ls and Ms send us. The option to resign is there, but with a 12 month notice, it hardly would have the right impact, would it?
 

Karma

War Hero
jungle_jim said:
well if it isn`t cowardice then what was it

conscience, an unwillingness to participate in an invasion which wasn't adequately justified, an unwillingess to blindly accept the dogma from No10 when anyone with any understanding of the many and various justifications could see them for the tissue of lies they were.

Frankly any invasion with quite as many justifications as were eventually used has to be questionable. As pointed out above the 12 month notice period renders any statement resignation fundamentally futile, but some did it.

.....they are not able to fight muslims......

Who said anything about muslims per se, using such broad brush terms simplifies the argument to the extent that it's not representative of reality. Iraq was a secular state.

.............if they felt that strong they shouldnt have joined in the first place.

Personally I didn't join the service to participate in a family feud on behalf of the US Head of State. Iraq was a sideshow, as I've stated above. We've turned it into part of the international terrorism problem, it wasn't at the time of the invasion. If you'll recall, a leaked assessment from DIS indicated that the incumbent regime was actually hostile to AQ.

at no point did anyone say you couldnt have an opinion?????????

Perhaps you didn't intend to infer that we shouldn't be discusing the issue, what exactly did you mean by your posting then?

i guess you wont voice your opinions loud at the next public forum with 2 SL.

Last time I had the ear of a v.senior officer he got exactly my opinion.
 
Top