newboy2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Yet more ridiculous strawman arguments, how surprising. I've said nothing about justifiable or not, and I have not implied that they kill indiscriminately. I'm well aware that the vast majority of our soldiers stick to the rules laid down in various international treaties, and thankful for it. That doesn't change the fact that their job is to kill people and provide a threat of killing people. That is why the army exists. Without that function it would serve very little purpose, and would be useless for defense. but its role is defense, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 but its role is defense, yes? Like we invaded defended Iraq, right? In any case you've moved the goalposts, if you remember you made this post in response to one of mine. not at all the armys main function is defense. killing people is an occupational hazzard. Now I didn't question that it's main role is defense. I questioned the second sentence, which is completely ridiculous as I explained here. If they didn't kill people and threaten to kill people they would serve no purpose whatsoever, they would be useless.Consequently it is entirely fair to say that the killing is absolutely central to their jobs. It is absolutely ridiculous to call it an occupational hazard, it is their primary function. Unsurprisingly, you ignored that. This secondary argument about the defensive role of the british army did not start with the former general claim, with which I have little problem. It started when you made this absolute claim the army our army only kills in defense. which goes too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newboy2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Like we invaded defended Iraq, right? In any case you've moved the goalposts, if you remember you made this post in response to one of mine. Now I didn't question that it's main role is defense. I questioned the second sentence, which is completely ridiculous as I explained here. Unsurprisingly, you ignored that. This secondary argument about the defensive role of the british army did not start with the former general claim, with which I have little problem. It started when you made this absolute claim which goes too far. thats because its true. our army only kills in defense. killing is an occupational hazzard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 thats because its true. our army only kills in defense. killing is an occupational hazzard. Like we invaded defended Iraq, right? If they didn't kill people and threaten to kill people they would serve no purpose whatsoever, they would be useless.Consequently it is entirely fair to say that the killing is absolutely central to their jobs. It is absolutely ridiculous to call it an occupational hazard, it is their primary function. It's like saying putting out fires is an occupational hazard of the fire service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newboy2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Like we invaded defended Iraq, right? If they didn't kill people and threaten to kill people they would serve no purpose whatsoever, they would be useless.Consequently it is entirely fair to say that the killing is absolutely central to their jobs. It is absolutely ridiculous to call it an occupational hazard, it is their primary function. It's like saying putting out fires is an occupational hazard of the fire service. iraq had it comming, we invaded it to defend our strategic interests. if they did not try to kill us we would not have killed them. fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hetty Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 A young man I know wanted to join the army from being a little boy. He joined up and did a stint in Afghanistan, but has now put in his 'notice' (he had signed up for four years and has done two) He has become very disallusioned with the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bourne Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 thats because its true. our army only kills in defense. killing is an occupational hazzard. Fratricide by the Yankee gun-slinging cowboys, now that is an occupational hazard. x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bourne Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 iraq had it comming, we invaded it to defend our strategic interests.if they did not try to kill us we would not have killed them. fact. Err... they weren't trying to kill us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newboy2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 A young man I know wanted to join the army from being a little boy. He joined up and did a stint in Afghanistan, but has now put in his 'notice' (he had signed up for four years and has done two) He has become very disallusioned with the whole thing. many do get disallusioned, i got out for a year. then went back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newboy2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Err... they weren't trying to kill us. they were when i was in iraq;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.