An interesting question.

Carrying on from what Truthy said on the Nick Griffin thread about Jack Straws dad refusing to fight in WW2, for the sake of argument, if you were called up to fight in Afghanistan or anywhere for that matter, would you fight or would you be a concientious objector.

MickyMod wrote:Carrying on from what Truthy said on the Nick Griffin thread about Jack Straws Grandad refusing to fight in WW2, for the sake of argument, if you were called up to fight in Afghanistan or anywhere for that matter, would you fight or would you be a concientious objector.

I wouldn't have fought in any of the conflicts that have taken place in my lifetime as I believe they were all preventable and in the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq criminal.

Fighting wars should be a last resort and only when your survival depends on it. Iraq and Afghanisan were not about the west's survival at all and i the case of Iraq it is quite obvious that it was about two things only - oil and the protection of Israel.

i would only fight if there was a threat of being invaded, and Iraq we shouldnt be there

MickyMod wrote:Carrying on from what Truthy said on the Nick Griffin thread about Jack Straws dad refusing to fight in WW2, for the sake of argument, if you were called up to fight in Afghanistan or anywhere for that matter, would you fight or would you be a concientious objector.

I would only fight a defensive war so, for example, the Korean war would be no but an attack on our island would be different.

Old_Punk wrote:

MickyMod wrote:Carrying on from what Truthy said on the Nick Griffin thread about Jack Straws dad refusing to fight in WW2, for the sake of argument, if you were called up to fight in Afghanistan or anywhere for that matter, would you fight or would you be a concientious objector.

I would only fight a defensive war so, for example, the Korean war would be no but an attack on our island would be different.

Out of curiosity, what about the Falklands?

DreamTwister wrote:

Old_Punk wrote:

MickyMod wrote:Carrying on from what Truthy said on the Nick Griffin thread about Jack Straws dad refusing to fight in WW2, for the sake of argument, if you were called up to fight in Afghanistan or anywhere for that matter, would you fight or would you be a concientious objector.

I would only fight a defensive war so, for example, the Korean war would be no but an attack on our island would be different.

Out of curiosity, what about the Falklands?

No. They are not our mainland isles and aren't even in our sphere of influence and never have been. A relic of the Empire if ever there was one.

markeymark wrote:i would only fight if there was a threat of being invaded, and Iraq we shouldnt be there

Agreed.

Old_Punk wrote:

DreamTwister wrote:

Old_Punk wrote:

MickyMod wrote:Carrying on from what Truthy said on the Nick Griffin thread about Jack Straws dad refusing to fight in WW2, for the sake of argument, if you were called up to fight in Afghanistan or anywhere for that matter, would you fight or would you be a concientious objector.

I would only fight a defensive war so, for example, the Korean war would be no but an attack on our island would be different.

Out of curiosity, what about the Falklands?

No. They are not our mainland isles and aren't even in our sphere of influence and never have been. A relic of the Empire if ever there was one.

From a logistics point of view, it wasn't very well planned anyway.

DreamTwister wrote:

Old_Punk wrote:

DreamTwister wrote:

Old_Punk wrote:

MickyMod wrote:Carrying on from what Truthy said on the Nick Griffin thread about Jack Straws dad refusing to fight in WW2, for the sake of argument, if you were called up to fight in Afghanistan or anywhere for that matter, would you fight or would you be a concientious objector.

I would only fight a defensive war so, for example, the Korean war would be no but an attack on our island would be different.

Out of curiosity, what about the Falklands?

No. They are not our mainland isles and aren't even in our sphere of influence and never have been. A relic of the Empire if ever there was one.

From a logistics point of view, it wasn't very well planned anyway.

so if the argies invaded again you would leave the british citizens to their fate?

what about the isle of man?

would you abandon the british citizens there to their fate too?

Interesting question yes and difficult for me to answer. I am not a pacifist but think I ought to be;I would not join up to defend or protect or kill but respect peoples mindset who do;I can't be totally sure of the Bibles teaching on this matter, I read it as 'not to take up arms' on the other hand it does seem to allow for that. It's a concept I've always struggled with.

Sometime they'll give a war and nobody will come. ~Carl Sandburg

I joined in the belief we would prevent war, and also my family are military, I have served in Ireland germany "Sinia"mfo and many other places and being honest I believe afghanistan a legit war as was the first gulf war (Kuwait) but the reasons for the second ongoing gulf war are illigitimate in my honest opinion

We could learn something from the Afghans.
Throw away our billion dollar attack fighter jets and subs,
Anyone foe who invades us, we defend to the death every inch of our land.
And as Churchill said,
Never Surrender.

Old_Punk wrote:

DreamTwister wrote:

Old_Punk wrote:

MickyMod wrote:Carrying on from what Truthy said on the Nick Griffin thread about Jack Straws dad refusing to fight in WW2, for the sake of argument, if you were called up to fight in Afghanistan or anywhere for that matter, would you fight or would you be a concientious objector.

I would only fight a defensive war so, for example, the Korean war would be no but an attack on our island would be different.

Out of curiosity, what about the Falklands?

No. They are not our mainland isles and aren't even in our sphere of influence and never have been. A relic of the Empire if ever there was one.

What about future possible Oil/minerals explorations, should we have just given them away ?????

Joshua wrote:

DreamTwister wrote:

Old_Punk wrote:

DreamTwister wrote:

Old_Punk wrote:

MickyMod wrote:Carrying on from what Truthy said on the Nick Griffin thread about Jack Straws dad refusing to fight in WW2, for the sake of argument, if you were called up to fight in Afghanistan or anywhere for that matter, would you fight or would you be a concientious objector.

I would only fight a defensive war so, for example, the Korean war would be no but an attack on our island would be different.

Out of curiosity, what about the Falklands?

No. They are not our mainland isles and aren't even in our sphere of influence and never have been. A relic of the Empire if ever there was one.

From a logistics point of view, it wasn't very well planned anyway.

so if the argies invaded again you would leave the british citizens to their fate?

what about the isle of man?

would you abandon the british citizens there to their fate too?

I've said on an earlier post I will fight for our local islands. Why should we fight for an ex Argentinian colony which we invaded?

What was the point of us invading tiny islands around the world. No I wont fight for the British Virgin Islands either, what are they to us, apart from offshore tax havens?

Would any of you fight for the Falklands etc. which have nothing to do with any of us? Has anyone been to the Falklands etc.?

Old_Punk wrote:

Joshua wrote:

DreamTwister wrote:

Old_Punk wrote:

DreamTwister wrote:

Old_Punk wrote:

MickyMod wrote:Carrying on from what Truthy said on the Nick Griffin thread about Jack Straws dad refusing to fight in WW2, for the sake of argument, if you were called up to fight in Afghanistan or anywhere for that matter, would you fight or would you be a concientious objector.

I would only fight a defensive war so, for example, the Korean war would be no but an attack on our island would be different.

Out of curiosity, what about the Falklands?

No. They are not our mainland isles and aren't even in our sphere of influence and never have been. A relic of the Empire if ever there was one.

From a logistics point of view, it wasn't very well planned anyway.

so if the argies invaded again you would leave the british citizens to their fate?

what about the isle of man?

would you abandon the british citizens there to their fate too?

I've said on an earlier post I will fight for our local islands. Why should we fight for an ex Argentinian colony which we invaded?

What was the point of us invading tiny islands around the world. No I wont fight for the British Virgin Islands either, what are they to us, apart from offshore tax havens?

Would any of you fight for the Falklands etc. which have nothing to do with any of us? Has anyone been to the Falklands etc.?

the falklands are british but if anyone wants to dispute that then it has to be sorted peacefully. the islanders are two thirds british/ british descent so we have a duty to protect them - not just leave them to the wolves.

They wouldn't have been left to the wolves if Thatcher hadn't made so many defence cuts as was pointed out at the time. I said it then and i'll say it now - the Falkland's War was a waste of life and something that at the time suited both the military junta in Buenos Aires and the scum in Westminster who wanted to boost their popularity at a time of deep recession and economic gloom. It was a mere sideshow to the problems that both Argentina and Britain faced at the time.

Truthy wrote:They wouldn't have been left to the wolves if Thatcher hadn't made so many defence cuts as was pointed out at the time. I said it then and i'll say it now - the Falkland's War was a waste of life and something that at the time suited both the military junta in Buenos Aires and the scum in Westminster who wanted to boost their popularity at a time of deep recession and economic gloom. It was a mere sideshow to the problems that both Argentina and Britain faced at the time.

Milk Snatcher would have never been elected in 83 if it wasn't for the Falklands war.

Had anyone heard of Port Stanley before 1982?

Old_Punk wrote:

Truthy wrote:They wouldn't have been left to the wolves if Thatcher hadn't made so many defence cuts as was pointed out at the time. I said it then and i'll say it now - the Falkland's War was a waste of life and something that at the time suited both the military junta in Buenos Aires and the scum in Westminster who wanted to boost their popularity at a time of deep recession and economic gloom. It was a mere sideshow to the problems that both Argentina and Britain faced at the time.

Milk Snatcher would have never been elected in 83 if it wasn't for the Falklands war.

Had anyone heard of Port Stanley before 1982?

and churchill would never have been a national hero but for ww2

Joshua wrote:

Old_Punk wrote:

Truthy wrote:They wouldn't have been left to the wolves if Thatcher hadn't made so many defence cuts as was pointed out at the time. I said it then and i'll say it now - the Falkland's War was a waste of life and something that at the time suited both the military junta in Buenos Aires and the scum in Westminster who wanted to boost their popularity at a time of deep recession and economic gloom. It was a mere sideshow to the problems that both Argentina and Britain faced at the time.

Milk Snatcher would have never been elected in 83 if it wasn't for the Falklands war.

Had anyone heard of Port Stanley before 1982?

and churchill would never have been a national hero but for ww2

Mrs Thatcher was never a national hero though. It seems she cared a lot more about the Falkland's inhabitants than the millions she threw out of work and the communities she destroyed.

Truthy wrote:

Joshua wrote:

Old_Punk wrote:

Truthy wrote:They wouldn't have been left to the wolves if Thatcher hadn't made so many defence cuts as was pointed out at the time. I said it then and i'll say it now - the Falkland's War was a waste of life and something that at the time suited both the military junta in Buenos Aires and the scum in Westminster who wanted to boost their popularity at a time of deep recession and economic gloom. It was a mere sideshow to the problems that both Argentina and Britain faced at the time.

Milk Snatcher would have never been elected in 83 if it wasn't for the Falklands war.

Had anyone heard of Port Stanley before 1982?

and churchill would never have been a national hero but for ww2

Mrs Thatcher was never a national hero though. It seems she cared a lot more about the Falkland's inhabitants than the millions she threw out of work and the communities she destroyed.

yeah well thatcher had this crazy idea that we shouln't be getting further and further into debt by spending more than we earned. of course, that meant the people suffered- and that ain't a recipe for keeping in government

the only problem is that sooner or later the country will have to suffer big time and suffer on an uheard of scale. The ND is somewhere around £15,000 per person in the UK and rising fast- but who will vote for a party that wants to do anything about it?

Joshua wrote:

Truthy wrote:

Joshua wrote:

Old_Punk wrote:

Truthy wrote:They wouldn't have been left to the wolves if Thatcher hadn't made so many defence cuts as was pointed out at the time. I said it then and i'll say it now - the Falkland's War was a waste of life and something that at the time suited both the military junta in Buenos Aires and the scum in Westminster who wanted to boost their popularity at a time of deep recession and economic gloom. It was a mere sideshow to the problems that both Argentina and Britain faced at the time.

Milk Snatcher would have never been elected in 83 if it wasn't for the Falklands war.

Had anyone heard of Port Stanley before 1982?

and churchill would never have been a national hero but for ww2

Mrs Thatcher was never a national hero though. It seems she cared a lot more about the Falkland's inhabitants than the millions she threw out of work and the communities she destroyed.

yeah well thatcher had this crazy idea that we shouln't be getting further and further into debt by spending more than we earned. of course, that meant the people suffered- and that ain't a recipe for keeping in government

the only problem is that sooner or later the country will have to suffer big time and suffer on an uheard of scale. The ND is somewhere around £15,000 per person in the UK and rising fast- but who will vote for a party that wants to do anything about it?

The BNP dont want to do anything about.

Shame the Tories did have any policies to stop people becoming more debt laden. Their banker mates didn't exactly try to reduce people's debt is here.