1: a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2: one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party
they can kill an insurgent....
- Thread starter Jai
- Start date
Currently reading:
they can kill an insurgent....
1: a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2: one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party
Ie a baddie who disagrease against the masses?/ goverment?
ie: Jug
I like Jug. He makes a lot of sense and I find him very informative and educational. He says what I think but he adds things which make me wanna punch the air and say FUNK YEAH!
Jug should write a book. I'd buy it.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2003
- Messages
- 46,073
- Points
- 7,134
I would burn it
Obviously forgetting about the hurt & suffering it causes to many people on this forum,and those who read the forum,who have lost loved ones,friends & family fighting for their country for the freedom those remaining enjoy.
I'm not just talking about the individual comment on this thread alone though.
Both Jai and Jug make valid points. I'm sure there are some who intend to do good. Just like there are in the Police force.
But you get w4nkers everywhere who just want to cause and be involved in trouble also. It works both ways.
Pictures are usually very large and I like to pay attention to important detail. We should not be ignorant. As the intelligent race we are, we should be doing better then we are now but some people exercise the right not to use their brain.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2004
- Messages
- 25,219
- Points
- 3,671
Must admit most things’ he says are spot on but this times a different story. That comment was just a little bit close to the bone. I don't always agree what they are doing but its there job either way and they have to do it and I always admire the professionalism in which they carry out their duties usually neglecting their own safety in the process usually.
Most of them are a lot braver than I ever would be..... And as said if it weren't for people volunteering everyone would have to do it through
conscription.
. I don't always agree what they are doing but its there job either way and they have to do it and I always admire the professionalism in which they carry out their duties usually neglecting their own safety in the process usually.Most of them are a lot braver than I ever would be..... And as said if it weren't for people volunteering everyone would have to do it through
conscription
.
you've got it upside down. instability in the middle east is used as a tool to restrict the supply of oil. that is done to keep the price high. a high price is needed to support oil dependant economies such as the USA. if there was peace in the middle east the price of oil would drop, that can not be allowed to happen. opec dont have the power to control the oil market, bush's war mongering does, just like his dad's war mongering did.
i think it is wrong that issues such as this are hidden behind an enemy that doesnt even exist. we dont need protection from iraq, they could not have done anything to harm us, nor would they want to. they were just unlucky to be chosen and used as an excuse for war. why should so many innocent people be killed just to support america's economy?
the oil issue is just one of the many different truths behind the west's activites in the middle east. plenty of people know that the threat of terrorism isnt even on the list, neither is liberating countries and giving them democracy. they are just excuses.
funny thing about the democracy issue. how is it any different to hundreds of years ago when europeans went to the middle east killing anyone who didnt convert to christianity? back in those days the aim was to get a bigger 'flock' so the church would have a bigger income and more power. today the idea is pretty much the same but the mechanism is different. now we want to have democracy, but a kind of democracy that ensures all these new govts are really just working for the US to ensure the US has control over world oil markets. if you are willing to play ball with the US then they are happy to let you take power and support you, they'll even train your army and give you the cash and weapons you need to take control (where do you think the talban originally came from ffs).
the stupid thing is that these 'elected' govts will never have control in the middle east because the people there are not stupid and they know that democracy is just a way of the US keeping control without actually occupying. without support from the people these govts will not succeed. if they do manage to get the support of the people then these govts suddenly turn against the yanks. either way it doesnt work. its common sense, well you'd think so, but it seems no one has told the yanks that. they've spent the last 50 years making the same mistakes again and again.
america justify the way they force govts into power by claiming to police the world to ensure human rights are protected. anyone who believe's that should PM me their credit card details.
the reason i have no respect for the armed forces is that they allow evil men to do bad things. if they refused to kill then there wouldnt be a problem and no one would want to bomb us. bush cant kill many people by himself but with an army doing anything he says he can cause a lot of pain and suffering. bush doesnt have to deal with the consequences, we all do, even people like me who dont get involved. anyone who takes part is directly responsible for the death and the consequences that will follow in future. you cant blame hitler for every jew that was killed, it took a lot of people. the same theory applies today, if you get involved you bear responsibility, even if you only cook the food that the murderers eat.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2004
- Messages
- 25,219
- Points
- 3,671
That’s not particularly true. It was in another similar topic I think it was 'Uno1984' cant remember exact user name but he had a degree in 'economics' I think, and he did a study and came to the conclusion America import a lot more oil from the middle east than what they produce themselves......
I could be wrong but why would a high oil price benefit them if this is the case?.
I could be wrong but why would a high oil price benefit them if this is the case?.
yes america imports oil, but it owns many of the oil wells that the oil comes from and the companies that extract it. for that reason america doesnt pay for the oil it imports. they pay cost price, its their oil, the country where the oil comes from will often get nothing. my dad worked on such an oil rig until it was bought back by the dubai govt 30 years after the yanks took it. for 30 years they got free oil, many billion $'s worth from that single well. in recent years many countries have been trying to take back their own oil wells. in dubai this was done by the govt, they simply took them back with the support of saudi (saudi own a lot of the american economy and have a lot more power than most other countries on earth). american companies were told to sell or be forced out. they all sold, but some retained 49% ownership. if this happened in more counties then america would be screwed, but that wont happen if the yanks put govts in power that do what they say. its a simple tactic, if you cant produce your own oil make sure you own the places that do. do you think the new iraqi govt will keep all their own oil revenue? not a chance. thats part of the deal, the yanks support them in return for rights to the oil.
i also studied economics the first time i went to uni, and i lived in the middle east, so ner ner ne poo poo.
i also studied economics the first time i went to uni, and i lived in the middle east, so ner ner ne poo poo.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2004
- Messages
- 25,219
- Points
- 3,671
:nerner:
Derv drinker
New member
Some good points from Jug, though I don't remember the US being involved with the conflict in the mid '80's when the Iranians were shooting up tankers in the Striaght of Hormuz when they had territory disputes with Iraq. I agree that OPEC can no longer control prices like they used to as it is more governed by the logistics and refining capacity at this current time. It also has been rumoured that the Americans will also go to great lengths to stop the oil being traded in anything other than the $, it is a problem that they have to live with as when the dollar is week like it is now they suffer the most.
You're totally right...by which I mean maybe in your own warped view you're right. Why don't you try signing up for the 4 years colour service, doing the job, living in the field. You know the phrase, 'walk a mile in their shoes' or however it goes. Try it. Wait until you're being shot at, RPG'd and mortared, then tell me you'd refuse to fight back. You're living in a dream world, but it's all far too down the line for that idealistic, and naive, view. You can trace it far further back than recent events. Most people don't join the Army, or RAF & RN, to be mindless killing machines. I've never met a single serviceman (or woman) who's sole reason for joining up was to kill. There are so many reasons why people join, and I'll guarantee that 'Killing' is towards the bottom of that list. Before you start slating the forces, think, and I mean REALLY think, about what would happen if the forces refused to fight.
And yes, if you're wondering, I am in the Army, and you couldn't be more wrong with all the talk about brainwashing, in fact I find it rather offensive. What I do in the Army is irrelevant, as are most of your comments about the forces. I suggest next time you feel like shooting your mouth off about the forces, you do some homework. It is, of course, your opinion, but in my opinion yours is a very uneducated one.
What do you think would happen honestly? I'm not going to let you answer that because I don't think you fully thought of your own question.
What would happen is that there would be no one to fight. If this happened in every countries armed forces then there would be no war because no one would be fighting. Something might happen after that but what would that be?
That is what we should be thinking about.
People may join to do good, but if somewhere down the line you are asked to fight then it is simply that persons job at the end of the day. You either fight or quit but fighting puts food on the table for the family.
As in any job, if the company policy changes you either deal with it or leave.
its not easy to leave the forces though, you have to buy your self out, if you cant afford to do that then you are stuck
I understand what you're saying, honestly I do. Of course everyone in the Forces (or at least everyone I work with) know that ultimately we will end up in a war zone, and anyone who doesn't realise that is ignorant. That is drummed into you from the moment you set foot in the forces careers office. I know that and I'm prepared for that, both emotionally and physically.
Obviously is every Army in the world refused to fight then yes, things would be different, but that is never going to happen, it's an idealistic fantasy...a nice one...but an impossible one. Of course people don't want war. It's brutal, and tears families apart for months on end, perhaps even for good. Jug wasn't saying that all Army's should do it, just ours. If that happened we'd be over run by any number of nations within weeks. Fact. My bigger problem with Jug's posts isn't that they're totally innacurate. Some very good points were bought up, especially about the Yanks and oil. (Believe it or not most guys in the Army DO realise that it's all just business now, and they're fighting for oil, and funnily enough...they're not too happy about it!)
Dave, it's not quite that difficult to leave any more, and for the most part, it's actually impossible to 'buy yourself out'. It changed some time ago. If you want to leave it's just time consuming more than anything. Once you've hit your 3 year point you can hand your notice to terminate in...only thing is it's not your average 2 week notice....it's another 12 months! I joined for a stable career doing something I love, and while the Army may have destroyed my love for that specific trade, I still love the Army, and my job's still stable. When was the last time you heard about a soldier being made redundant.
So apologies to Jug and Trancendental if I didn't get my point across all too clearly, but that's all I'm apologising for, especially as you've flamed my profession. I do think you'd benefit from a couple of years doing my job, just for an understanding into what makes soldiers tick if nothing else.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2004
- Messages
- 25,219
- Points
- 3,671
No you don't.... You can PVR (Premature Voluntary Release) which can take upto 6 months but doesn't cost you
.Only thing you got to think about is you pension which may be reduced etc.
And this 'join up to kill' thing is happening but it tends to be the Royal Marines which are currenty 'over recruiting' at the moment due to 16-17 year olds wanting war glory......
. The rest of the armed forces are undermanned especially the Army mostly due to people PVR'ing due to the fight in Iraq etc.
Last edited:
