- Print Topic - Archive

Quoted from TheRonRaffertyFanClub

You certainly wouldn't be able to post that comment.

really? comments like this seem to be harking back to world war 2. wars since have not been to protect against any serious threat of invasion and totalitarian rule.

i have no idea why someone who joined up to do a paid job in the armed forced through their own choice, and went to fight in some very morally and legally questionable wars, should get free tickets, or special heroic treatement, as opposed to NHS staff for example.

it's a kind of jingoism that worryingly stifles debate about the nature of our military and their involvement in conflicts of questionable motivation.

armistice day is a slightly different question. it's remembering millions of victims on all sides that fought in a needless and completely preventable war.

Quoted from WOZOFGRIMSBY

Opening up the pontoon would've been a more fitting tribute for our sea fairing heros IMHO
Maybe printed some as black writing on white paper and vice versa. Get the pontoon full and hold up the paper to signify gtfc or similar

Then we can all make paper airplanes to chuck at the oppo's keeper!

Our sea faring heroes are proud men and i would think many have a place for GTFC over the years - my Grandad does - he's 101 and still asks me about how are town doing and who scored etc. He was in WW2 in Arctic Convoys (PQ17 on the Northern Gem amongst others) and also skippered landing craft at D-Day landing in Aramanches and Bayeaux

This from my aunties account of a chat with him when they did the specials on TV this year.

Charlie and I went over to see him for tea and took him in some fish and chips and the coverage was still on and the service was just starting from the beach at Aramanches with all the Normandy Veterans there, dare I say, most of whom were aged from 89 years upwards and some were more doddery than your grandad. Anyway, they kept showing wartime footage of landing craft, etc and he started saying that they were what he was on and he was explaining to Charlie how they got in as far as they could to the beach, dropped the front and then the soldiers got off, waist deep in water and went onto the beaches, whilst he had to double back for the next load of soldiers. He said that he was on 3 different landing craft in total, as the first two got sunk, and that on one of the journeys to the beach the landing craft next to him got ‘shelled’ and just exploded into pieces along with all aboard, about 30 in total. I have never heard him say this before, I knew that he was on a landing craft on D Day, but that is all. He kept describing the town/village of Aramanches and was keen to see the veterans march through the streets to see if it was still the same as when he was there in the town.

UTM and UTGySailors 8) 8)

Quoted from MarinerWY

really? comments like this seem to be harking back to world war 2. wars since have not been to protect against any serious threat of invasion and totalitarian rule.

i have no idea why someone who joined up to do a paid job in the armed forced through their own choice, and went to fight in some very morally and legally questionable wars, should get free tickets, or special heroic treatement, as opposed to NHS staff for example.

it's a kind of jingoism that worryingly stifles debate about the nature of our military and their involvement in conflicts of questionable motivation.

armistice day is a slightly different question. it's remembering millions of victims on all sides that fought in a needless and completely preventable war.

I am not particularly in favour of the club's idea.

There might be one argument about the more recent veterans who knew that they were signing up for interventionist wars. On the other hand they were injured carrying out the lawful policies of their country. Whether those policies are right or wrong should not affect kindness to individuals should it? Whether that should mean free tickets is again another issue. I can't see why that is needed.

WW2 is different because so many of the population in Grimsby and other towns were involved in the services and as civilians. I would object to free tickets for WW2 services personnel like my father and not for my mother who worked in munitions at Service Engineering, or my uncles who served on minesweepers for instance. That was a national effort to save the country for future generations like us. WW2 was neither needless nor preventable. It guaranteed the freedom for people to have the opinion that it was! We may think our freedoms are heavily curtailed today but it does not take a lot of thought to see that we have far more liberty than we would have if we had not fought and won that war.

Personally I don't like these free ticket notions because they are divisive and unnecessary. Charities can be supported without this kind of holier than thou activity.

Quoted from TheRonRaffertyFanClub

WW2 is different because so many of the population in Grimsby and other towns were involved in the services and as civilians. I would object to free tickets for WW2 services personnel like my father and not for my mother who worked in munitions at Service Engineering, or my uncles who served on minesweepers for instance. That was a national effort to save the country for future generations like us. WW2 was neither needless nor preventable. It guaranteed the freedom for people to have the opinion that it was! We may think our freedoms are heavily curtailed today but it does not take a lot of thought to see that we have far more liberty than we would have if we had not fought and won that war.

i completely agree with all of that, hence my first statement. ww2 is a completely different situation, and one which definitely would have threateneed our very freedom and liberty and that of millions of others across europe. without a doubt, and i'm proud of all those that contributed to the struggle.

however in terms of justification and motivation for war, imo it's hard to make that argument for many wars since that the UK have been involved in, which have served other political aims.

the "needless and preventable" statement was referring to world war 1, as i thought armistice day was related to the day ww1 ended? with conscription, the soldiers who died in that war were victims of what was arguably a very avoidable war.

Quoted from TheRonRaffertyFanClub

On the other hand they were injured carrying out the lawful policies of their country.

i'd also question the "lawful" part of that statement. there wasn't much lawful about bloody sunday or the iraq war, for example. at some point the "just doing a job" or "just following orders" becomes morally redundant if there are doubts about legality and morality of conflicts.

ww2 was a clear case of a neccessary war that protected the liberty and security of the citizens of the UK and europe. various wars since then have represented geo-political interests far removed from the wishes or needs of citizens.

Think this football thread is in danger of becoming a non footy political thread

Quoted from MarinerWY

the "needless and preventable" statement was referring to world war 1, as i thought armistice day was related to the day ww1 ended? with conscription, the soldiers who died in that war were victims of what was arguably a very avoidable war.

i'd also question the "lawful" part of that statement. there wasn't much lawful about bloody sunday or the iraq war, for example. at some point the "just doing a job" or "just following orders" becomes morally redundant if there are doubts about legality and morality of conflicts.

ww2 was a clear case of a neccessary war that protected the liberty and security of the citizens of the UK and europe. various wars since then have represented geo-political interests far removed from the wishes or needs of citizens.

The origins of WW1 lie in nationalist ambitions and particularly those of the Kaiser. It can be argued that the actual start of the war was an unfortunate accidental combination of circumstances and misjudgments but the greatest probability is that the war would have found another excuse to begin. The initial cause was many miles away from the UK but there was a very real fear about the German fleet and that this country could be invaded.

The sheer number of volunteers and the first hand accounts of the ordinary people involved show clearly an overwhelming support for the war. Obviously after some time that support waned but nevertheless it was still very strong especially along the east coast after the shelling of seaside towns and zeppelin raids on civilian targets.

I totally agree with you about the wars since 1945 which have been often of dubious legality particularly Iraq 2 but WW1 does not fall into that category. Neither is it fair to take out our political objections out on the people who fought in those wars. That does not mean we should give blanket approval through gimmicks like free ticketing.

As you say, that kind of thing smacks of jingoism and makes us cynical about motives. It is not for GTFC to say who and what the fans should support. Why not give free access to cancer sufferers and collect for Macmillan nurses? Think what the outcry would be from the MS sufferers. I would be happy to see Remembrance Day commemorated at the club in some way but not this way.

Quoted from codcheeky

Absolute nonsense

Really! there are different types of wars, WW1 and WW2 were wars that were dominated by Germany via the Austrian/ Serbian incident and involved us as treaty members,WW1 France, Belgium, and Russia. and WW2 invasion of Poland, both were military conquests that would have had an effect on this country had they succeeded, were they unavoidable YES all wars are but sadly one party can`t see that.
I discount the Blair Bush wars as political gain and IMO were avoidable.

IS are now the new culprits to try to dominate by force and terror both in their own countries and ours,and without an alert brave security and military presence football would be way down the list of our importance.
So I am in favour of showing gratitude in whatever way

Quoted from Garth

Really! there are different types of wars, WW1 and WW2 were wars that were dominated by Germany via the Austrian/ Serbian incident and involved us as treaty members,WW1 France, Belgium, and Russia. and WW2 invasion of Poland, both were military conquests that would have had an effect on this country had they succeeded, were they unavoidable YES all wars are but sadly one party can`t see that.
I discount the Blair Bush wars as political gain and IMO were avoidable.

IS are now the new culprits to try to dominate by force and terror both in their own countries and ours,and without an alert brave security and military presence football would be way down the list of our importance.
So I am in favour of showing gratitude in whatever way

I do not know why you posted the original statement , maybe in some attempt at populism but it is complete nonsense, who have we ever fought would ban football games? The germans never even stopped POWs playing football and the russians in the soviet union actively encouraged sport even to the point of cheating in countries they controlled, How many countries that britain has controlled have we stopped citizens playing their sports?

If Germany had won, would our finishing be more efficient now?? ;)

Keep politics out of football... or as some might see our last 10 years as us keeping football out of football... :o

but always for an armistice day ceremony or whatever... UTM !!!

Quoted from codcheeky

I do not know why you posted the original statement , maybe in some attempt at populism but it is complete nonsense, who have we ever fought would ban football games? The germans never even stopped POWs playing football and the russians in the soviet union actively encouraged sport even to the point of cheating in countries they controlled, How many countries that britain has controlled have we stopped citizens playing their sports?

A good job too otherwise Sylvester Stallone may not have made it back to play Rocky

Quoted from codcheeky

I do not know why you posted the original statement , maybe in some attempt at populism but it is complete nonsense, who have we ever fought would ban football games? The germans never even stopped POWs playing football and the russians in the soviet union actively encouraged sport even to the point of cheating in countries they controlled, How many countries that britain has controlled have we stopped citizens playing their sports?

Only if the were blond ayrian, there would have been no place for black people --read your history

I don't get this differentiating between armed forces members now and then. Once you join any armed service then you are involved with whatever conflict arises regardless of what your own opinions are. It might be your choice to enlist and obviously fight if required but you have no say whatsoever where that conflict is or why it arose. Both the World Wars involved a lot of volunteers as well as conscripts plus the regular forces who joined before any conflicts arose.

I also don't have any problems with this so called " Americanisation " approach. As far as the armed forces are concerned American people are very supportive of " Veterans " and they certainly seem to be better treated than we do ours. I have spent a lot of time in the US, both my daughters are married to Americans and the general impression of them by people in this country is a lot different to what they are really like in their everyday life.

Quoted from rancido

I don't get this differentiating between armed forces members now and then. Once you join any armed service then you are involved with whatever conflict arises regardless of what your own opinions are. It might be your choice to enlist and obviously fight if required but you have no say whatsoever where that conflict is or why it arose. Both the World Wars involved a lot of volunteers as well as conscripts plus the regular forces who joined before any conflicts arose.

I also don't have any problems with this so called " Americanisation " approach. As far as the armed forces are concerned American people are very supportive of " Veterans " and they certainly seem to be better treated than we do ours. I have spent a lot of time in the US, both my daughters are married to Americans and the general impression of them by people in this country is a lot different to what they are really like in their everyday life.

After WW1 Lady Bonham Carter advised the young ladys of the day not to associate with returning soldiers in case they should catch VD (Allegedly)
,Home sweet Home for returning heroes, do me a favour Phftt,

"Homes fit for heroes. And Only heroes could live in them*," as my old history teacher Gordon Taylor used to joke.

* Probably not fair really as I'd happily live in an inter-war house right now (council or private).

Quoted from Paris Mariner

Whilst I have no issue with this - Armistice Day commemorations have been taking place for many years at football matches it saddens me that we are seeing an Americanism of our sport with an increasing number of games featuring members of the armed forces before kick off and been given free tickets in the crowd.

http://www.codalmighty.com/site/ca.php?article=46

This year also marks the 100th anniversary of the First World War, there will be special mention of those soldiers - including the Mariners' own 1914 squad – who took part in the fighting.

Americanisms or over due recognition, you could debate this till the cows come home.

The facts are Town players joined the forces and lost their lives, these weren't experienced serviceman and I doubt we will ever see anything like the selfless acts of bravery ever again. The link between then and now are those who are still serving, volunteering so others aren't forced to like in other countries (conscripts). The reason why you see Forces personnel at these events, is because they have been asked to represent those who we lost all those years ago.

Plenty of people are given free tickets at both home and away games who are far less deserving but I don't see anyone vilifying them.

Quoted from MarinerWY

i have no idea why someone who joined up to do a paid job in the armed forced through their own choice, and went to fight in some very morally and legally questionable wars, should get free tickets, or special heroic treatement, as opposed to NHS staff for example.

it's a kind of jingoism that worryingly stifles debate about the nature of our military and their involvement in conflicts of questionable motivation.
.

The difference between HM Forces and any other civilian occupation goes further than just a paid job. A service personnels life isn't their own, he/she can not turn down working extra hours, can not refuse to go some where they are told to go, they have no choice of living conditions or living standards and they certainly can not plan in the long term i.e.; holidays or family celebrations and that's speaking from 22 years HM Forces experience. So how you are trying to say is just a paid job beggars belief.

The Forces act on Parliamentary polices and they are the polices you allowed to be made because of your voting rights in a democratic society, if they are legally questionable why haven't any MP's or Prime Minsters been prosecuted.

I would like to see you ask the Para who lost 3 limbs in Afghanistan why he deserves more heroic treatment than other government sector workers.

Still several service personnel died for you to have those insular views, each to their own, I volunteer is better than 10 pressed men.

Quoted from Marinerz93

The reason why you see Forces personnel at these events, is because they have been asked to represent those who we lost all those years ago.

You must know something the rest of us don't then. It certainly does not say anything like that in the club's blurb about this event and I haven't heard it said anywhere else.

I don't think anyone would deny that service life following orders and being posted all over is hard. Neither do I think anything said was meant in a derogatory way about service personnel. The point was that these days, since the end of national service, joining up has been completely voluntary and more importantly the forces have advertised very strongly the careers aspect of enlisting. Therefore in that sense it is as much a paid job as being on a trawler or in an office or on a hospital ward.

Quoted from TheRonRaffertyFanClub

You must know something the rest of us don't then. It certainly does not say anything like that in the club's blurb about this event and I haven't heard it said anywhere else.

I don't think anyone would deny that service life following orders and being posted all over is hard. Neither do I think anything said was meant in a derogatory way about service personnel. The point was that these days, since the end of national service, joining up has been completely voluntary and more importantly the forces have advertised very strongly the careers aspect of enlisting. Therefore in that sense it is as much a paid job as being on a trawler or in an office or on a hospital ward.

Are you saying they haven't been invited and it's a military coup  ;)

I appreciate your view but you can't just decide on a Monday that you're not going into work because you've had enough or you are going to work for someone else.  My point being, it isn't just a paid job because your life isn't your own and you do not have the same choices as a civilian does.  You can not compare them as the same.

The advertising of jobs is to inform a generation who knows very little about modern day HM Forces.  Years ago the majority of people in this country either knew someone or had family members serving in the Forces.  If there isn't enough volunteers what do you think the government will do.

I did read the previous posters comments as slightly derogatory but, thought it more of one of ignorance.

Quoted from Marinerz93

The difference between HM Forces and any other civilian occupation goes further than just a paid job. A service personnels life isn't their own, he/she can not turn down working extra hours, can not refuse to go some where they are told to go, they have no choice of living conditions or living standards and they certainly can not plan in the long term i.e.; holidays or family celebrations and that's speaking from 22 years HM Forces experience. So how you are trying to say is just a paid job beggars belief.

Not really. You can just choose not to join the armed forces. So all of that is part of your pay packet.

Quoted Text

The Forces act on Parliamentary polices and they are the polices you allowed to be made because of your voting rights in a democratic society, if they are legally questionable why haven't any MP's or Prime Minsters been prosecuted.

Do I really have to go into that in full? Because in various instances there have been prosecutions to no avail, against various armed forces of various countries. We know the American training and creation of the South American Contras in Nicaragua was a war crime (it was proven in an international law court). We know Israel has more United Nations sanctions against it than any other nation. We know Bloody Sunday killed 13 innocent men and women. We pretty much know the Iraq war used intelligence services to "support" an already decided policy rather than provide reliable information on the situation (a great book by ex-MI5 intelligence gatherer Brian Jones called "Failing Intelligence" is well worth a read). Going further back, the use of chemical gas against civilian populations in the Middle East. The Dresden bombing. I could go on. There simply isn't any realistic jurisriction over superpowers, be they Western or not (these listed cases are war crimes that were committed by "Western" forces because it's more relevant to what we're debating, not because I am using selective bias).

Quoted Text

I would like to see you ask the Para who lost 3 limbs in Afghanistan why he deserves more heroic treatment than other government sector workers.

This is what I mean, complete jingoist nonsense. I would feel very sorry for said man or woman, as I would anyone who had suffered that, be it through a cause of armed conflict or a car crash. It doesn't mean I'd have any qualms about asking them that particular question though, as it is perfectly valid.

Quoted Text

Still several service personnel died for you to have those insular views, each to their own, I volunteer is better than 10 pressed men.

Really? I'm not sure opposing blind support of what has all-too-often been used as an imperialist geo-political force could be described as insular, in fact, and somewhat ironically, I think your perspective on the role of our foreign policy in the modern world could be described as "insular".

I would also contest that since WW2, I'm not sure anyone has died in conflicts for me to hold my views. 130,000 civilians in Iraq have died though, for a war to protect what? Not our freedom, and not out of any genuine interest in ending the horrendous abuses of Sadam Hussein - if we used our military to stop horrendous human rights abuses and genocides, they'd be in half the countries in the world.

Your posts are exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. If we're not careful we'll slide into a completely Americanised situation, where opposing a extremely dubious foreign war results in accusations of being un-patriotic and against our troops.

Quoted from Marinerz93

I did read the previous posters comments as slightly derogatory but, thought it more of one of ignorance.

No, I just obviously have a different world view than yourself. Not sure that makes either you or me ignorant.

Quoted from MarinerWY

No, I just obviously have a different world view than yourself. Not sure that makes either you or me ignorant.

I've been all over the world and seen first hand the difference our Forces have made to the world. You will only read or see watered down media what is really going on / in and around the world. I feel you are ignorant to what being a service person is.

Quoted from Marinerz93

I've been all over the world and seen first hand the difference our Forces have made to the world. You will only read or see watered down media what is really going on / in and around the world. I feel you are ignorant to what being a service person is.

So your participation as part of one side of global conflicts (more often than not the occupier), obviously gives you a completely unbiased perspective on things, and therefore the opinions and reports of others, including human rights observers, ex-soldiers, ex- secret services workers, aid workers, victims, affected communities and various different sources of information are "watered down".

Your experience on the ground is of course a valuable source of information, but it is not a holistic perspective, nor does it nullify the reports and perspectives of others (regardless of whether they also share direct experience or not).

Your arguments hold no weight, I'm afraid. And you haven't addressed the majority of my points in my previous post.

Quoted from MarinerWY

Not really. You can just choose not to join the armed forces. So all of that is part of your pay packet.

Has got to be the lowest paid job in the world then for what you sign away.

Do I really have to go into that in full? Because in various instances there have been prosecutions to no avail, against various armed forces of various countries. We know the American training and creation of the South American Contras in Nicaragua was a war crime (it was proven in an international law court). We know Israel has more United Nations sanctions against it than any other nation. We know Bloody Sunday killed 13 innocent men and women. We pretty much know the Iraq war used intelligence services to "support" an already decided policy rather than provide reliable information on the situation (a great book by ex-MI5 intelligence gatherer Brian Jones called "Failing Intelligence" is well worth a read). Going further back, the use of chemical gas against civilian populations in the Middle East. The Dresden bombing. I could go on. There simply isn't any realistic jurisriction over superpowers, be they Western or not (these listed cases are war crimes that were committed by "Western" forces because it's more relevant to what we're debating, not because I am using selective bias).

Bloody Sunday, the rioting before hand soldiers used a water cannon, tear gas and rubber bullets, it was only when the intelligence came in that an IRA sniper was in the area that live ammunition was issued.  What do you think would happen if the soldiers were over run and had their weapons taken off them.  The details of Bloody Sunday will always be vague and counter arguments from both sides.

The Dresden Bombing was retaliation for the blitz on England.  It was all out war and boundaries had already been broken, a message had to be sent.

Who are you talking about chemical gas against civilians?

I would also contest that since WW2, I'm not sure anyone has died in conflicts for me to hold my views. 130,000 civilians in Iraq have died though, for a war to protect what? Not our freedom, and not out of any genuine interest in ending the horrendous abuses of Sadam Hussein - if we used our military to stop horrendous human rights abuses and genocides, they'd be in half the countries in the world.

So you are saying that US and UK Forces killed all 130,000 of these civilians, Shi'a and Sunni didn't kill any?

Your posts are exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. If we're not careful we'll slide into a completely Americanised situation, where opposing a extremely dubious foreign war results in accusations of being un-patriotic and against our troops.

I didn't call you un-patriotic, but I do feel that your under valuing of service personnel and the type of work they do, sees you as a conscientious objector and using that ideology to back up your views.

Quoted from MarinerWY

So your participation as part of one side of global conflicts (more often than not the occupier), obviously gives you a completely unbiased perspective on things, and therefore the opinions and reports of others, including human rights observers, ex-soldiers, ex- secret services workers, aid workers, victims, affected communities and various different sources of information are "watered down".

Your experience on the ground is of course a valuable source of information, but it is not a holistic perspective, nor does it nullify the reports and perspectives of others (regardless of whether they also share direct experience or not).

Your arguments hold no weight, I'm afraid. And you haven't addressed the majority of my points in my previous post.

You have no idea how much intelligence and information we have before deploying. You have no idea how much intelligence and information we get whilst we are deployed. The modern day service person is more in tune with what is going on than at any time in history. I've worked with intelligence units, specialist units and supported medical staff when they have treated victims. The information that gets back to the UK is watered down, fact and you don't get anywhere near the amount of intelligence or information that a deployed service person gets, that's pretty obvious.

I addressed your previous post, I find it very selective to suit your point of view.

Quoted from Marinerz93

Are you saying they haven't been invited and it's a military coup  ;)

I appreciate your view but you can't just decide on a Monday that you're not going into work because you've had enough or you are going to work for someone else.  My point being, it isn't just a paid job because your life isn't your own and you do not have the same choices as a civilian does.  You can not compare them as the same.

The advertising of jobs is to inform a generation who knows very little about modern day HM Forces. Years ago the majority of people in this country either knew someone or had family members serving in the Forces.  If there isn't enough volunteers what do you think the government will do.

I did read the previous posters comments as slightly derogatory but, thought it more of one of ignorance.

Ever since I can remember (i.e. back to the 60s and therefore shortly after the era of National Service) advertising for the armed forces has been just that. Advertising. Advertising emphasising the career opportunities or excitement. A few years back during the height of Iraq/Afghan conflicts, there were even veiled references to the opportunity for some real fighting. It's never been about "informing". You might get more information when you got into the process, but all you got/get from the adverts was/is "it's good for the skiing/dashing around in fast boats".

Well they aren't going to advertise the days on end sat in the tea-bar waiting for something to happen, standing in the wind and rain guarding tents in a field, getting shouted at by some old guy who's been in 30 years because your sideburns and hair are too long or having your bedroom inspected annually and being told you are beneath dogshit because they found some dust behind your radiator etc etc etc are they?

Quoted from KingstonMariner

Ever since I can remember (i.e. back to the 60s and therefore shortly after the era of National Service) advertising for the armed forces has been just that. Advertising. Advertising emphasising the career opportunities or excitement. A few years back during the height of Iraq/Afghan conflicts, there were even veiled references to the opportunity for some real fighting. It's never been about "informing". You might get more information when you got into the process, but all you got/get from the adverts was/is "it's good for the skiing/dashing around in fast boats".

I was talking to a recruiter at a the Liverpool Town show summer 2010 (Forces event) and I asked him why my trade was under manned at the time. He went into a spiel about required figures then adjusted figures which meant there was always going to be a short fall. I asked him why they didn't advertise more and he said there was no need, that they get more people wanting to join when ever there is conflict involving the UK. The adverts are just informing people of the jobs available because less people have involvement with the Forces. That was the view of the recruiters.

He asked me where I was from and when I told him Grimsby his eyes lit up, he said that Grimsby is in the top 3 places when there is a conflict on, that people join or want to HM Forces.

Quoted from Marinerz93

He asked me where I was from and when I told him Grimsby his eyes lit up, he said that Grimsby is in the top 3 places when there is a conflict on, that people join or want to HM Forces.

At Benson there was 40 blokes on my shift and 4 of us lived within half a mile of each other up here.

Quoted from LH

Well they aren't going to advertise the days on end sat in the tea-bar waiting for something to happen, standing in the wind and rain guarding tents in a field, getting shouted at by some old guy who's been in 30 years because your sideburns and hair are too long or having your bedroom inspected annually and being told you are beneath dogshit because they found some dust behind your radiator etc etc etc are they?

;D

I'd been to the barbers just before a big parade and got a No2 short back and sides and some twit balled me out on first parade saying I needed a hair cut ;D

Use the cloths you put in the dryer to wipe down any surfaces, it makes the surface repel dust ;)

That doesn't make him a conscientious objector.

Agree on the pay.

Dresden wasn't a retaliation. It was a bloody long time in coming if it was. At best it had a dubious claim to morality (and that's not belittling the brave bomber crews), at worst a war crime involving the unnecessary massacre of 10,000s of civilians that did little to bring the war to an end. Had the boot been on the other foot, then Bomber Command would have been facing trial and execution (like Goering). The ostensible aim of the bombing of Nazi Europe was to degrade the enemy's ability to wage war. It always caused "collateral damage" but by 1945 the high command seemed to be blasé about it and almost gave up the pretence of targetting the war machine - the best that can be said is it diverted some German war fighting capacity into home defence.

As for the chemical weapons he probably means this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_British_use_of_chemical_weapons_in_Mesopotamia_in_1920

Quoted from LH

At Benson there was 40 blokes on my shift and 4 of us lived within half a mile of each other up here.

I know what you mean, where ever I have been there has always been someone from Grimsby and the funniest one I met was a fella whose surname was Codd ;D

When i joined up in 89 there was 3 of us from Grimsby waiting at the station for the train to Plymouth ready for basic training.

Quoted from KingstonMariner

That doesn't make him a conscientious objector.

Agree on the pay.

Dresden wasn't a retaliation. It was a bloody long time in coming if it was. At best it had a dubious claim to morality (and that's not belittling the brave bomber crews), at worst a war crime involving the unnecessary massacre of 10,000s of civilians that did little to bring the war to an end. Had the boot been on the other foot, then Bomber Command would have been facing trial and execution (like Goering). The ostensible aim of the bombing of Nazi Europe was to degrade the enemy's ability to wage war. It always caused "collateral damage" but by 1945 the high command seemed to be blasé about it and almost gave up the pretence of targetting the war machine - the best that can be said is it diverted some German war fighting capacity into home defence.

As for the chemical weapons he probably means this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_British_use_of_chemical_weapons_in_Mesopotamia_in_1920

A large portion of the population of Dresden was working for the German war machine, over a 100 factories and major rail links. The bombing was designed to cause as much damage to that infrastructure and strike fear in to the Germans. Coventry, London and other places in UK suffered more civilian losses than Germany.

How far back are we going to go to vilify how UK Forces act through Westminster's orders. The fact that the poster in question keeps bringing up the negative or what would be classed as controversial with today's agreements and bans clearly suits the label given.

Lets not discuss how UK Forces personnel have given aid to countries in need through droughts, major earthquakes, tsunamis, war and currently going to help with Ebola.

Quoted from KingstonMariner

"Homes fit for heroes. And Only heroes could live in them*," as my old history teacher Gordon Taylor used to joke.

* Probably not fair really as I'd happily live in an inter-war house right now (council or private).

My least favourite teacher at school but got to know him some years later through work and he his a really nice fella.

Quoted from moosey_club

My least favourite teacher at school but got to know him some years later through work and he his a really nice fella.

He came over as a right old stickler at first but his true qualities shone through after a while. We still quote his old anecdotes and sayings 35 years on!

"kicked out of the SS for cruelty"
"a united Ireland. United under the Union Flag".
Admiral Jellicoe's talk in Grimsby.
The one about the Soviet factory he worked at and 'stop all cycles'.
And the one which ended with his dad saying, "We filled our pants lad. We filled our pants".

Quoted from Marinerz93

A large portion of the population of Dresden was working for the German war machine, over a 100 factories and major rail links. The bombing was designed to cause as much damage to that infrastructure and strike fear in to the Germans. Coventry, London and other places in UK suffered more civilian losses than Germany.

How far back are we going to go to vilify how UK Forces act through Westminster's orders. The fact that the poster in question keeps bringing up the negative or what would be classed as controversial with today's agreements and bans clearly suits the label given.

Lets not discuss how UK Forces personnel have given aid to countries in need through droughts, major earthquakes, tsunamis, war and currently going to help with Ebola.

You can still object to certain acts in war, or even to certain whole wars, government mandated or not, but still believe that war is a legitimate tool. So none of that makes him a conscientious objector.

You could even accept that UK armed forces do good work, over and above providing valuable defence, and still not agree that members and former members should be given free tickets etc.

Re: WWII bombing. Many more German civilians were killed by the RAF (and USAAF) than British ones by the Luftwaffe. 60,000 Brits versus 300-600k Germans. We killed more in 2 raids (Hamburg and Dresden) than they killed Brits. And we (us and Yanks) even killed more French than the Germans killed British. I admit it's not a black and white issue, but the bombing campaigns are even controversial from an efficacy angle - would we have won the war quicker with a different strategy?

Personally, I think it is right that we use Nov 11 to remember and give thanks for all the sacrifices made over the last hundred years.

Quoted from LH

Well they aren't going to advertise the days on end sat in the tea-bar waiting for something to happen, standing in the wind and rain guarding tents in a field, getting shouted at by some old guy who's been in 30 years because your sideburns and hair are too long or having your bedroom inspected annually and being told you are beneath dogshit because they found some dust behind your radiator etc etc etc are they?

Just like
being at home then?

Quoted from BIGChris

[/b]

Just like
being at home then?

It's a nice break coming to work to be honest.

Quoted from Marinerz93

The difference between HM Forces and any other civilian occupation goes further than just a paid job. A service personnels life isn't their own, he/she can not turn down working extra hours, can not refuse to go some where they are told to go, they have no choice of living conditions or living standards and they certainly can not plan in the long term i.e.; holidays or family celebrations and that's speaking from 22 years HM Forces experience. So how you are trying to say is just a paid job beggars belief.

Then don't join up if you have all this for poor pay, nobody forces people to.

Quoted from Marinerz93

You have no idea how much intelligence and information we have before deploying. You have no idea how much intelligence and information we get whilst we are deployed. The modern day service person is more in tune with what is going on than at any time in history. I've worked with intelligence units, specialist units and supported medical staff when they have treated victims. The information that gets back to the UK is watered down, fact and you don't get anywhere near the amount of intelligence or information that a deployed service person gets, that's pretty obvious.

I addressed your previous post, I find it very selective to suit your point of view.

I have already sourced a book by an ex-MoD intelligence analyst who was heavily critical of the process and nature of intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq. I'm pretty sure he is will have had more access to intelligence than soldiers on the ground, given his role as an MoD metallurgist for 16 years. I also reccomend Robin Cooke's book "The Point of Departure" for a comprehensive summary of UK involvement in funding and arming Saddam Hussein with the very weapons that were subsequently used as a reason to start the second Iraq war.

I would also question why your reports are any more valid than any other ground-level operative, for example the reports of Red Cross humanitatian workers who are also there in Iraq. The idea that the military is the only reliable and un-filtered source of information is ridiculous. Even if said information is reliable, it is very much from one perspective.

You claim it is a fact, but unfortunately you don't prove something is a fact by putting it in bold letters. If you can use sources that reliably shows that United Nations Humanitarian reports, Red Cross reports, all ground level journalism and civilian witness statements are "watered down" and less reliable than "the soldiers on the ground", it might hold a bit more weight.

Re: Bloody Sunday, the use of the Para's to police a peaceful protest was at best a huge error, at worst a calculated move. Regardless of "calmer" methods used before the shootings, there were 13 dead civilians, many shot in the back running away. All of them were unarmed. One was shot waving a white hankerchief trying to help another victim. One who had their arms in the air shouting "don't shoot". Even disregarding the immorality of what happened, tactically it was extremely counter-productive as it served as a huge recruitment drive for the IRA.

As for me being a conscientious objector, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. To which conflict? I have already stated that I am proud of the men and women who fought and contributed in whatever way during WW2. My listing Dresden as a war-crime does not negate this. But I happen to believe that since WW2 the vast majority of conflicts the UK has been involved in have not been motivated by the security of the UK nor for the interests of the population of the occupied country, but for geo-political strategic and economic gains. I don't believe that our Ministy of Defence currently adheres to it's name, given our aggressive foreign policy and implication in countless conflicts.

Your statement earlier along the lines of "if it was illegal someone would have been charged" to me shows a huge ignorance of how power structures operate and how juristriction can massively vary depending who has influence, power and wealth.