egafd.com

strawberrycheescake wrote:
> Do you actually expect someone to answer that question?
Of course not; IT WAS A JOKE.
> Come back with something a bit more constructive or worthwhile and
> maybe there might be a chance we could engage in a constructive
> conversation.
There are medications available for your condition. And why do you
assume I might want to talk to you?

> I only replied to this because I am from a large military
> family
Then you're presumably slightly biased. Special pleading doesn't
exactly enhance a discussion. But I take your point that you
presumably know what you're talking about- as do I, had you the
knowledge of my background and/or the simple courtesy to
acknowledge it.

> For some reason JJ you want to
> turn this thread into "do I agree with what military personnel
> do with there spare time".
You run with the ball a little too far here, don't you think?

> When you have fought for you country
> side by side with soldiers whose main concern is “will I make
> it to the end of the day”
Howe many REALLY join up from pure patriotism? Are there not
other motives?

> .... When you leave your house do you have to worry whether or
> not someone has put a bomb under your patrol car?
No; because I can safely assume the police have beeen doing their
job. Since when [apart from in the Province] has the Army been
responsible for domestic security?


> deserve all the time off that they get, Whether it be spent
> working at Wimbledon...
So you can confirm they're unpaid for this 'duty'? As a taxpayer I
partially pay the Armed Forces' wages and therefore have a perfect
right to know how my expenditure is utilised.


> JJ you are a conscientious objector.
And you deduce this how, exactly? 4WIW I don't like warfare
[especially the 'young men getting pointlessly killed/wounded' bit]-
but that's essentially a governmenatal failure], and I doubt many
soldiers do, either, but that's a Hell of a way from a CO.

> Do you know what that
> means? I suggest you keep your opinions to yourself.
It's a democracy both here,and at large in the UK- which I always
assumed the Army was there to protect.

JJ wrote:
>Then you're presumably slightly biased.

fair one JJ this is true

> Special pleading doesn't exactly enhance a discussion.

whos pleading. i was hoping you would be open minded enough on your own

>had you the knowledge of my background and/or the simple courtesy to acknowledge it.

your so big JJ. please teach me

>You run with the ball a little too far here, don't you think?

no. i think i was spot on.

>Howe many REALLY join up from pure patriotism? Are there not
other motives?

being from birmingham is a popular one. true patriotism probably isnt a reason why people join but i was talking about going to war for your country, not loving it.

>Since when [apart from in the Province] has the Army been
responsible for domestic security?

more then you know JJ, more then you know.....

>So you can confirm they're unpaid for this 'duty'? As a taxpayer I
partially pay the Armed Forces' wages and therefore have a perfect
right to know how my expenditure is utilised.

bit of a contradiction there jj. your right, you do pay their wages but as i pointed out they dont get paid so what do you care.

>And you deduce this how, exactly? 4WIW I don't like warfare
[especially the 'young men getting pointlessly killed/wounded' bit]-
but that's essentially a governmenatal failure], and I doubt many
soldiers do, either, but that's a Hell of a way from a CO.

im not sure exactly what you were trying to say here. you should do a quick edit before you post things, but ill give it a shot. i deduced this by reading your earlier posts. its obvious you have an issue with the military. thats okay. people have a right to think what ever they like because:-

>It's a democracy both here,and at large in the UK

i 100% agree with you that people have a right to think what they want but you have to accept that while all these people rant and rave about how the military is no good/a waste of resources/so on and on, they are actually being protected every minute by this countries defences, whatever there opinion is. you even admit this in one of your earlier contradictions. ill use the less stupid contradiction as an example:

>It's a democracy both here,and at large in the UK- which I always
assumed the Army was there to protect.

but you also wrote

>Since when [apart from in the Province] has the Army been
responsible for domestic security?

since you paid your taxes and expect it from them.

>As a taxpayer I partially pay the Armed Forces' wages and therefore have a perfect right to know how my expenditure is utilised.

JJ you raise some great point and id like to think i have also (with less conchy bollox). the truth is i have grown some respect for you buddy cos i honestly do feel everybody has a right to there opinion. youve made it clear your not stupid bro and that you can construct an argument using your intelegence rather then someone elses. we need people like this to stand at the forefront of social politics. let us all put down are weapons and have a big hug. we will use love and kindness to solve future quarells, and hope korea dont nuke us. and if they do fuck it:-

>that's essentially a governmenatal failure

strawberrycheescake wrote:
such a lot of stuff I don't know where to start.
But you seem a sincere and decent chap, so I'll try to adrress
some of the 'issues' you've raised- some at least of which may
have arisen from you poor reading of my general standpoint
[General Standpoint? I served with him at Ypres....].

Main one is, I AM NOT 'anti-military'; yes, I'd prefer there to be no
need for armed forces of any sort, but that's hopeless idealism.

> your so big JJ. please teach me
I suspect I'm older than you and have wider #life-experience',
whatever that ,eans, but I'll try not be TOO patronizing : -))

> no. i think i was spot on.
You weren't even close.
>
> >Howe many REALLY join up from pure patriotism? Are there not
> other motives?
>
> being from birmingham is a popular one. true patriotism
> probably isnt a reason why people join but i was talking about
> going to war for your country, not loving it.
The comradeship, the sense of 'home' [look at how many ex-squaddies
get insecurity-neurosis after leaving- the costs of the aftermath
are horrendous], the sheer adrenaline of battle, the machismo, the
birds [sometimes ; -))]. Anything but the bloody awful pay- unless
you're an officer, of course....


> >Since when [apart from in the Province] has the Army been
> responsible for domestic security?>
> more then you know JJ, more then you know.....
Oh, please, don't play the 'Secret Squirrel' card. I know at least as
much as you [and probably a good deal more] about black ops.

> bit of a contradiction there jj.
No.
>.. but as i pointed out they dont get paid so what do you
> care.
I must have missed that one, sorry.


> >And you deduce this how, exactly? 4WIW I don't like warfare
> [especially the 'young men getting pointlessly killed/wounded'
> bit]-
> but that's essentially a governmenatal failure], and I doubt
> many
> soldiers do, either, but that's a Hell of a way from a CO.
>
> im not sure exactly what you were trying to say here. you
> should do a quick edit before you post things
!!!!! Pot, kettle, black.

, but ill give it
> a shot. i deduced this by reading your earlier posts. its
> obvious you have an issue with the military. thats okay. people
> have a right to think what ever they like because:-

> i 100% agree with you that people have a right to think what
> they want but you have to accept that while all these people
> rant and rave about how the military is no good/a waste of
> resources/so on and on,
Which people? Certainly not me.

> you even admit this in one of your earlier contradictions. ill
> use the less stupid contradiction as an example:>
> >It's a democracy ....but you also wrote.....domestic security?
Can you not tell the difference between two wholly different things?
The Chinese, for example, are red-hot on domestic security but
not quite all that keen on democracy : -)

> .....weapons and have a big hug. we will use love and kindness to
> solve future quarells, and hope korea dont nuke us.
That's SO gay : -)) Anyhoo, NK is about as much danger to us
as a three-week old hamster, with chronic asthma and a llimp.

JJ
i have a three week old hamster, with asthma and a limp. and i take offence. really jj to be honest i dont give a crap. i only posted because i know someone who loves going to wimbledon every year to work as a steward. thats it really. i didnt want to get into a big debate about the military and stuff. i believe it got out of hand. also i believe the debate is un winable (i accept that this may not be a word) and our genious argument has proven this. we could go on forever cos were so good. but we have to stop sometime. for angry sex. also yeah im pretty young. theres a good chance your well older than me. i wont use this against you.

strawberrycheescake wrote:
> i didnt want
> to get into a big debate about the military and stuff.
Me neither : -) I already have about four major battles going
on here : -0)

> I believe it got out of hand.
These things tend to, where strong opinions are held.

> also i believe the debate is unwinable
But interesting, nevertheless : -) No-one has a monopoly on life-
experience so for me it's always fascinating to hear about other
peeps' lives.

> for angry sex.
Lucky you : -))

> also yeah im pretty young.
I'll forgive you for that: it's not your fault : -))

>.... theres a good chance your well older than me. i
> wont use this against you.
I should bloody well hope not. Have some respect for your elders
and betters !! [img]http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/smileys/oldie.gif[/img]

nice one JJ.
the last thing i want to be is the new donny long.
glad everyones all friends

Ah, shit. We beat each other up here every week.

Part of the fun, innit?