This is what 8 years of fighting war on a peace time budget has done....

[Dan_Dare]

You know, for someone who claims to want to defend this country, and has made several statements claiming to want to protect our cultural identity, you're very quick to suggest we dismantle the fabric of that same culture.

 

It's a totally absurd suggestion for starts, but more to the point it goes against everything you say your uniform represents.

[danny]

I dont say we dismantle anything. But i would rather give up any of the nice things in life to save a lads life.

Im not saying we give up our rights. But publicly funded art, drama etc yeah i think the country could give that up for a few years. FFS in WW2 people gave up the pans to be melted down in to spitfires

[Dan_Dare]

actually, that was all a publicity stunt. the metal was poor quality and never used. more to the point, comparing Afghanistan to WW2 is ridiculous. Not to trivialize deaths, but to say we're experiencing losses great enough to halt arts funding indefinitely is totally mental.

 

and no, funded art is something we couldn't do without. The Arts Council is one of the best things about this country.

[danny]

actually, that was all a publicity stunt. the metal was poor quality and never used. more to the point, comparing Afghanistan to WW2 is ridiculous. Not to trivialize deaths, but to say we're experiencing losses great enough to halt arts funding indefinitely is totally mental.

 

and no, funded art is something we couldn't do without. The Arts Council is one of the best things about this country.

 

Yeah it so much better than being able to get on a train/plane/bus without some fool trying to blow you all to a meeting with allah

[Paj!]

Until it's on a World War Scale, I really can't imagine much about this being done.

 

Sadly, they signed up for it, it's a high risk they'll end up dead.

 

I understand the necessity of a military, even if I don't agree with what it represents.

[Gizmo]

Until it's on a World War Scale, I really can't imagine much about this being done.

 

Sadly, they signed up for it, it's a high risk they'll end up dead.

 

I understand the necessity of a military, even if I don't agree with what it represents.

 

Well done on completely missing the point of this thread.

[Sheikah]

Ok, since this is going around in circles, here is the argument in plain text so that people may refer to it rather than repeat the same things:

 

- British troops are being killed in Afghanistan!

> But people sign up to the army, they should know the risks involved!

> Plenty more people die elsewhere!

 

- But the government sent the troops out there - and aren't providing adequate funding. You can hate the war, but don't hate the hardworking troops!

> But they should know the risks!!1

> Cut back army funding! War is bad!

 

- What the hell, you're missing the point! Whether you agree with it or not, people are being sent to the gallows with poor equipment! They should cut the arts and give that funding to troops!

> Day terk errr joorbbbs!

> Cease art funding?! You're out of your mind! You're destroying our identity!

 

 

What we can learn from this topic...

 

- War is bad.

- The troops aren't.

- They should get more funding to actually carry out their job.

- There are actually more pressing world issues.

- Cutting back funding to several of the listed things shouldn't happen.

 

And we all walk away feeling slightly dishevelled, but wiser.

[Dyson]

Ok, since this is going around in circles, here is the argument in plain text so that people may refer to it rather than repeat the same things:

 

- British troops are being killed in Afghanistan!

> But people sign up to the army, they should know the risks involved!

> Plenty more people die elsewhere!

 

- But the government sent the troops out there - and aren't providing adequate funding. You can hate the war, but don't hate the hardworking troops!

> But they should know the risks!!1

> Cut back army funding! War is bad!

 

- What the hell, you're missing the point! Whether you agree with it or not, people are being sent to the gallows with poor equipment! They should cut the arts and give that funding to troops!

> Day terk errr joorbbbs!

> Cease art funding?! You're out of your mind! You're destroying our identity!

 

 

What we can learn from this topic...

 

- War is bad.

- The troops aren't.

- They should get more funding to actually carry out their job.

- There are actually more pressing world issues.

- Cutting back funding to several of the listed things shouldn't happen.

 

And we all walk away feeling slightly dishevelled, but wiser.

 

:bowdown:

[Gizmo]

And we all walk away feeling slightly dishevelled, but wiser.

 

This part I struggle to agree with, but otherwise, it's a fair summary.

[jayseven]

Sheikah's got the POTT (Post of the thread... you heard it here first!) with that, but I had to reply to these;

I said I was out of this thread, but I had to come back since this post absolutely disgusts me. The soldiers are doing the most difficult job possible, day and night. Just because more people have died of knife crime/aids/famine/whatever, doesn't make the deaths of soldiers due to lack of equipment any more tolerable. End of. The government made the decision to go to war in another country, they should provide the best equipment possible to ensure the job is done as safely as possible (same as any job).

I'm sorry, but seeing our soldiering robocops versus their cavemen stick-wavers (note: exaggeration abound) and our side arguing about our equipment? If this whole argument is just about equipment being sold to the army knowingly defect, then sure, go ahead, whine about that. But the rest of my points are still valid. You can look at any sector of any country's economy/society and complain that things are not perfect, and you will be told that there is not enough money, and that you have to make do.

 

Yes, I understand that I am belittling the lives of those little tiny young pre-adolescent lads that we are apparently sending to their deaths against their will, but the other day the traffic lights stopped working for the cars, but not for the pedestrians on my road, so it was a green man for me but a green light for the HGV that braked heavily, its wingmirror just clipping my exclaimed arm. Not kidding, if I was a woman with a buggy, I'd be dead right now.

 

 

Far too many people can't see the difference between the army and the government and end up hating/disrespecting the army/soldiers. Our soldiers deserve respect, wheter or not the government does is debateable.

My cousin is in the army, he's served in iraq, afghanistan and a bajillion other places. Of course I have respect for teh soldiers. But I also have respect for our government ("shock horror! someone kill that man, he is clearly insane!") and the difficulties they face in balancing these endless demands.

 

This "death of soldiers due to lack of equipment" is bugging me. I just think it's a vastly overburdened phrase that bears no real correlation to the situation at all. Please, feel free to whip some elaborative facts and figures in my face. I just can't help but picture the contrast against the Enemy and their teeming pile, their over-abundance of perfect-working equipment that vastly conquers our own. We're playing chess and the other side only has four ludo pieces, and we're complaining because we lost a rook and a knight? Yes, belittling again.

 

 

See what I meant by this thread is going round in circles?

Yes I do, but you said my post disgusted you, so I couldn't really leave it there, could I?

 

It's also worth noting that a lot of the soldiers may have joined before the war started, so may not have known what they were getting themselves into. Obviously they know there's the possibility of war, but they didn't know the politics that would lead to it, meaning they may have signed up for the countries defence, but are now fighting a war they disagree with as much as the public.

They can quit, go to jail for a bit, whatever. Nobody is forcing them to kill people they don't want to kill. But if they do feel forced, then of course, they have my utmost sympathy.

 

I take it you didn't loose any relatives in 7/7 then?

Why? I have no idea where you get this correlation from. Because I think the money we spend on 'defense' could be better spent actually 'defending' the country? I mean, y'know, like having more police in london and on public transport and in public places rather than in the middle east to defend me when I'm on a bus?

I dont expect anyone to be greatful waht i do expect is the govenment to hold up there end of the deal and be a responsable employer and minimise risk just as every civilian employer has to. There will always be risk i dont dispute that, there will always be death i dont dispute that. But many of the current deaths are avoidable.

But it does effect you. This country was a safe haven for terror. (do not confuse iraq and afghan) At least on of the london bombers had trained in afghan fact. The majority of people have never been in a fire or an ambulance so are no better served by either of thos services either going off your logic.

The thing about being in the government's position; no matter how much risk is minimised, people will still accuse the government of cutting corners, of lives still being wasted. I do not confuse iraq and afghanistan, but thanks for the parenthesis. I'm loving the ambiguity of "this country was a safe haven for terror"... but anyway; the point. Deaths are avoidable? Yes. But not just with war. You, of course, feel much more emotion when it comes to deaths of our 'wee lads'. I feel the same amount of emotion for any death, besides those specific to my individuality.

 

The majority of people have not been to war, so there goes your logic. The Fire/Medic/Police services help more people than you seem to think. Can I ask you directly - why the army, and not the police?

 

 

You miss the point we know there will be deaths, we all knew this the day we signed up. BUT that does not mean the govenment can send lads to there deaths without having to answer for each and everyone. If a lads gets shot in the face thats unavoidable. If a lad gets blown up in a land rover, when the govenment has know for the last 8 years they are not safe or fit for purpose that is avoidable.

Did the landrover spontaneously combust, or was it shot with some sort of explosive, which blows things up? How was it not safe or fit for purpose? Why is being shot in the face unavoidable?

 

Keeping fighting over the same land for years on end is pointless. To move the war on we need to be able to hold the land and prevent them coming back until they are eventually squeazed out/killed. This dosent endanger more lifes. This means you dont have to attack a village every year or every other year.

Prolonguing a war always endangers more lives. Yours, theirs, the native civilians. Yes, this is an 'anti-war' point; I don't see it ever 'ending'. Do you?

 

Well maybe someone should have told the grining muppet tony blair this before he got us in above our heads. And the RBL have figures sugesting that in large citys over 50% of homless people are ex servicemen with mental health issues caused by serving who have just been abandoned by the govenment. So theres a good chance you would be doing us a favour any way.

Figures such as 50% are vastly exaggerated. Have you any first-hand experience of the homeless? Sure, in america I could be swayed by such figures, but here in the UK? Nuh-uh. at least 50% will be due to abuse, physical, mental, sexual or drug. I feel more sympathy for the homeless because when tehy do die it's not a shot to the face or an exploding jeep, it's years of torment, agony, spite and anger. Bleh. This isn't a cohesive argument, I know. I just don't think that you are at all aware of any of the validity of the opposing argument. You can't trump everything with the 'equipment!' line, ok?

[MoogleViper]

Did the landrover spontaneously combust, or was it shot with some sort of explosive, which blows things up? How was it not safe or fit for purpose?

 

Now I'm not expert on this. But I believe he means the snatch landrovers which were used in northern Ireland. They have very little armour as opposed to other vehicles. So if it was another vehicle then it would have fared much better.

 

I'm sure somebody else can give more details/facts than me about this.

[navarre]

 

Why? I have no idea where you get this correlation from. Because I think the money we spend on 'defense' could be better spent actually 'defending' the country? I mean, y'know, like having more police in london and on public transport and in public places rather than in the middle east to defend me when I'm on a bus?

ok?

 

Well then, let me make the correlation clear, so we don't have to debate the matter again! The number of troops fighting the Taliban is the independent variable- it fittingly goes on the x axis, wheras the dependent variable- the amount of terrorist attacks on the West (yes, that's me and you, in other words)- goes on the y axis. Now, here we can see the nagtive correlation- the more troops on Afghanistan, the less attacks on the West, because the less men/ground/weapons the Taliban have to train terrorists. And before you start claiming the only terrorist attack on the West since the Afghan invasion has been 7/7, let me stop you there- MI5 and the like uncover several terrorist plots a year, with the Glasgow Airport attacks and the Trans-Atlantic plots the most publicised. See?

[danny]

why the army, and not the police?

 

Just goes to show your basic lack of knowledge to the armed forces look left.

 

Did the landrover spontaneously combust, or was it shot with some sort of explosive, which blows things up? How was it not safe or fit for purpose? Why is being shot in the face unavoidable?

 

No the landrovers are very rarely shot at with anything. Which is a shame they can take 7.62 rounds quite well. What they cant take however is a landmine. Or 4 landmines strapped together, or homemade explosives. They are about as good in this situation as the landrover any farmer drives around in. The taliban did fight us with bullets. But now they kept on loosing so now they much prefer to put a bomb in the road (a bomb anyone could set of) and watch from a distance. Or getting a 13 year old special lad to blow himself up in front of you. This is why landrovers are not safe or fit for purpose.

 

As for being shot in the face.How would you stop someone in combat being shot in the face. You need your face unobstruted to fire a weapon. Like i say we know there are risks and this is one of them.

[nightwolf]

You say all this but you don't quite explain you when you 'it shows little understanding of blah blah blah'.

 

Sigh..

[danny]

You say all this but you don't quite explain you when you 'it shows little understanding of blah blah blah'.

 

Sigh..

 

What he said why the army? Im not in the army. My point. I fail to see yours?

[nightwolf]

What he said why the army? Im not in the army. My point. I fail to see yours?

 

I believe he meant why should the army get funds over the police, but I thought you had some thought behind that point, hence asking.

[danny]

O well my simple answer would be the police arnt dieing in numbers last seen in 1982.

[ipaul]

Well then, let me make the correlation clear, so we don't have to debate the matter again! The number of troops fighting the Taliban is the independent variable- it fittingly goes on the x axis, wheras the dependent variable- the amount of terrorist attacks on the West (yes, that's me and you, in other words)- goes on the y axis. Now, here we can see the nagtive correlation- the more troops on Afghanistan, the less attacks on the West, because the less men/ground/weapons the Taliban have to train terrorists. And before you start claiming the only terrorist attack on the West since the Afghan invasion has been 7/7, let me stop you there- MI5 and the like uncover several terrorist plots a year, with the Glasgow Airport attacks and the Trans-Atlantic plots the most publicised. See?

 

Was that attack not just particularly shoddy attempts by the terrorist group in question? If I remember rightly a Scottish man kicked one of them in the balls when he was on fire. Good times

 

I might be wrong, but I thought that was the one.

[Gizmo]

The Glasgow attack pretty much failed, but it was still a significant terrorist attack.

 

I flew from Glasgow the day before the attack, found out about it on holiday, and flew back 6 days later. They have since added huge bollards in front of the entire terminal building that a hummer couldnt drive through.

[danny]

Well the defence select commitee have agreed that there is a need for more helos to be deployed. And that the govenment should be looking at buying new ones as patching up 30 year old airframes is a false economy and is going to cost us a lot more in the long run. This was a paper which was scheduled before the recent rise in casualties.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8153129.stm

[jayseven]

Well then, let me make the correlation clear, so we don't have to debate the matter again! The number of troops fighting the Taliban is the independent variable- it fittingly goes on the x axis, wheras the dependent variable- the amount of terrorist attacks on the West (yes, that's me and you, in other words)- goes on the y axis. Now, here we can see the nagtive correlation- the more troops on Afghanistan, the less attacks on the West, because the less men/ground/weapons the Taliban have to train terrorists. And before you start claiming the only terrorist attack on the West since the Afghan invasion has been 7/7, let me stop you there- MI5 and the like uncover several terrorist plots a year, with the Glasgow Airport attacks and the Trans-Atlantic plots the most publicised. See?

Wow. You win some xkcd points for the totally unnecessary use of graphing! There are clearer ways of saying that, so you lose points for being patronising. I love nagative correlations. What? I'm an English student. I'll be as up-nosed as you, if I like. UNNECESSARY GRAMMAR ATTACK. I lose.

 

I can't really argue about the secret terrorist plots that have been stopped before they even sprouted, as I don't disagree that it happens, but I dispute how strong a piece of quantitative evidence it is when there aren't even any facts or figures to put on your fancy graph to really show any sort of correlation. That's the thing about all of this - it's not an exact science, it's a balancing game. If you think near-genocide is the answer, then you're wrong.

 

But you insinuated that losing a relative in 7/7 would be all it takes for me to support? If you're into conspiracy theories then you're a novice. WAT IF DA GOVEMMMENT DID IT?!! It's hard to stay rational when empiricism has been thrown out of the window, when logic is determined by blobs of ink on a paper, pixels on your screen. An entire history of the world set in stone, shaping your thoughts, your way of life. Bleh. Life.

 

Just goes to show your basic lack of knowledge to the armed forces look left.

What he said why the army? Im not in the army. My point. I fail to see yours?

As I'm sure I said, I don't have a great knowledge of the armed forces - but here your problem is that I don't know what you do for a living. So excuse me for not giving enough of a shit about your job, but I don't know what 95% of the people here do.

 

No the landrovers are very rarely shot at with anything. Which is a shame they can take 7.62 rounds quite well. What they cant take however is a landmine. Or 4 landmines strapped together, or homemade explosives. They are about as good in this situation as the landrover any farmer drives around in. The taliban did fight us with bullets. But now they kept on loosing so now they much prefer to put a bomb in the road (a bomb anyone could set of) and watch from a distance. Or getting a 13 year old special lad to blow himself up in front of you. This is why landrovers are not safe or fit for purpose.

I can't argue with you about the art of war, or enemy adaptive techniques, because you know the beans there. I don't know the situation in particular, and I have no idea if you do or not, so I can't argue about it at all.

 

As for being shot in the face.How would you stop someone in combat being shot in the face. You need your face unobstruted to fire a weapon. Like i say we know there are risks and this is one of them.

Those metal masks they have on Army of Two.

 

In all seriousness, we're both being a little pendantic here. I'm beng argumentative because I know you aren't at all listening to the other side of the argument. You ignore some points I make, which is fair enough, but you can't expect me to respect your responses if you do this all the time.

Edited July 16, 2009 by jayseven

[danny]

If the landrovers are the same as a farmer's rig, then sure, I feel you.

 

I wont say there the same. But as far as resistance to an IED or mine strike then yes they bassically are. Just for a bit of balance.

[nightwolf]

In all seriousness, we're both being a little pendantic here. I'm beng argumentative because I know you aren't at all listening to the other side of the argument. You ignore some points I make, which is fair enough, but you can't expect me to respect your responses if you do this all the time.

 

Point proven.

[EEVILMURRAY]

Those metal masks they have on Army of Two.

Wrong.

[navarre]

Was that attack not just particularly shoddy attempts by the terrorist group in question? If I remember rightly a Scottish man kicked one of them in the balls when he was on fire. Good times

 

I might be wrong, but I thought that was the one.

 

Oh yes. No other community in the world other than Scotland would involve an airport employee on his fag break punching a burning terrorist to the ground. They should have taken a picture and put it on the 'Welcome to Scotland' sign on the Anglo-Scottish border.

 

But you insinuated that losing a relative in 7/7 would be all it takes for me to support? If you're into conspiracy theories then you're a novice. WAT IF DA GOVEMMMENT DID IT?!! It's hard to stay rational when empiricism has been thrown out of the window, when logic is determined by blobs of ink on a paper, pixels on your screen. An entire history of the world set in stone, shaping your thoughts, your way of life. Bleh. Life.

 

Most, if not all, consipracy theories, are devised by bunch of seniors with too much time on their hands who meet every Saturday morning with a laptop's access to Wikipedia and the internet to try and make the government of a democratic, liberal society to look like a bunch of totalatarian lyers who keep their own names secret from the public. It's ridiculous.