Isn’t that what the Taliban believe they are doing? You’ve just stated that you think the Taliban’s protection of itself is 100% normal and acceptable. So, if that’s the case does it come down to who is morally right or who wields the biggest stick?

I do not advocate terrorism or support the terrorists. It is something that needs to be stopped. But I don’t think making US and UK service personnel walk in front of IED’s is the way to do it.

Regards,

kev35

Aye, and we are morally right. The ordinary “People” in those countries are equally morally right. It’s the scum that is wrong.
Aye, we should have done more from the air. A bomb-truck with a shedful of LGB’s is a far better method than walking sand.

Wouldn’t that be a question for Old Shape? It is so ingrained in his nature that that is how he makes his living.

Regards,

kev35

It’s ingrained in mankind.
Even in womankind too, but just when they get a good job they go off and have kids.
Is it wrong to want to pummel the head of the robber you catch in your lounge? No it certainly isn’t. Protection of ones own tribe is 100% normal and acceptable. Way back in the days of Babylon and beyond, castration was assumed to take away lust and anger. It didn’t. (They now run for South Africa!)
I am alone to be named and shamed amongst the several million defence workers and forces personnel? We all make a living because peace needs to be kept or wars need to be managed. Most of my work is now future based, the kit of 2025 and beyond (And one particular beauty being brought fwd to 2013). All of this stuff is aimed (No pun) at killing, very accurately. We are already accurate, but we need to keep increasing/changing the overmatch capability which sometimes takes the brains/energy away from new concepts.

Of course not. But perhaps there might be a way of doing this without putting so many people in harms way. If you want to put it into those terms, terrorists have had major successes for little cost – 9/11, Madrid, London etc. Conversely, British and American forces have had less success at far greater cost. Surely the onus is on our respective Governments to find a way of eliminating terrorists without having to put so many troops on the ground. I would dread to think what the combined budgets of the US and British intelligence services are but, with troops on the ground dying in the numbers they have recently, shouldn’t we be questioning whether they are offering value for money?

Just as an aside, when you and I were younger and terrorist attacks by the IRA on the UK mainland were at their peak, would you have advocated full scale nuclear attacks on the south of Ireland as you advocate the nuclear annihilation of Iran? Would you have advocated the bombing of certain cities in America where support for the IRA was at its greatest?

Or does your definition of “terrorist” and “scum” depend on how far east they originate?

Regards,

kev35

Exactly, shock and awe for two weeks would have saved a lot of groundwork.
Our governments would dearly love to have the terrorists killed off in the old fashioned way. It is no longer “Acceptable” to have the CIA kill people in their beds. Far more acceptable to ship millions of tons af artillery around the world.
As for the IRA, no, the fall-out would come West on the jetstream.
We did a good enough job of shotting the IRA, once we didn’t have to account for every single bullet. If they weren’t quite dead, the ambulance would take the long route.
My policy is not wipe-out, selective nuclear strikes if you please. Israel will do it for us on Iran, unless US has rolled over the border.
Noraid was funded by a small minority of people, and in some cities a larger group. Theose individuals needed a talking to yes. Mind you, we did a lot of damage to ourselves there. The “Tours” by both sides in the early 90’s saw Mr G Adams (The bad guy in my book) giving speaches in an orderly presentable manner. On our side we had the loud-mouthed gobshyte Paisley. I know who the more gullible would listen to.

Old Shape said….

“Mankind has not lived in peace since we stood vertically and made a knife from Flint so all we can do is passively prosper until a jerk thinks they are better than the West and decides to stir it. Then, we need to obliterate that jerk. What on earth is wrong with that?”

Nothing, except in so doing you will be making yourself redundant.

Regards,

kev35

Very good!
So, do you support the rights of a terrorist against the West? I do not and cannot. We have a better life value and a far better system (Even though ours is completely corrupted by politicians).

Then you have a clear vested financial interest in the continuation and, indeed, escalation of armed conflict everywhere.

Rather sporting of you to admit it.

No, the West is passive. We only take action after an attack upon us. After that point, yes I totally believe that we should use all our might and force to the best of our ability. It only has to continue for as long as the job takes, it only needs to escalate if the enemy doesn’t get the message. It takes us a while to give them the message, our British reserve and a general anti US pinko press prevent our military leaders carrying out the business of defeating the enemy as fast as possible. “Shock and awe” should have lasted a fortnight, but the budget wouldn’t stretch to such a weapon stock.

My salary is the same no matter what goes on. And yes, my career and a great many others is dependant on a war machine being around. I don’t have a problem with that. Mankind has not lived in peace since we stood vertically and made a knife from Flint so all we can do is passively prosper until a jerk thinks they are better than the West and decides to stir it. Then, we need to obliterate that jerk. What on earth is wrong with that?

J Boyle.

Yes, I do believe that includes all Service deaths, however they occurred. It only goes as far as 2006 and I couldn’t find anything any more accurate than that. The British figure of just under 400 only includes those who died as a result of enemy action. As you say it’s still far too many, whether they’re American or British. In the UK we hear little of American casualties and until recently our Government has been extremely coy about releasing the numbers of wounded.

I have a question for Old Shape.

Does your own personal wealth increase commensurate with the numbers the products you are involved with kill? Rather than bang for your buck is it more a case of pounds per person killed?

Regards,

kev35

No, we don’t get commission.

I’m sure the families of the four US soldiers killed in Northern Iraq earlier today would be the first to agree with you.

And the families of the 14 people killed in bombings in Iraqi cities on Monday.

And the families of the hundreds of people killed in bombings in Iraq during August.

And so on…….

We did not say stopped, we stated dropped.

My point being that the comments on the melting points, the no wreckage, the steel buildings falling due to fire etc. are usually made by somebody that assumes aeroplanes are made of something a little more solid than they actually are and doesn’t understand how steel yields and how objects disintigrate.
The conspiracists on this are very very flawed.