Re: Clarkson's latest article.

On Dec 26, 11:45 pm, Frootbat <m...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 04:46:05 -0800 (PST), aquachimp

<aquach...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 25, 6:58 pm, Frootbat <m...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 01:09:21 +0000, Mike Swift

<mike.sw...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <fhf0n3t489qgr4nlq4vc8gkcbc2f2me...@xxxxxxx>,
middleli...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes
I saw that too.  Beggars belief doesn't it?

"Sure, I've been left both physically and mentally disabled and had the
rest of my life, not to mention that of my close family, ruined for the
sake of a completely pointless war in Afghanistan.  Yes I know that I'll
now never marry or have children, and have the pleasure of watching them
grow up.  And I know that once my parents die (which, given the strain
of looking after me and the stress and pain of seeing me in this
condition will probably be sooner than they would have done otherwise)
I'll be left to the care of people who couldn't really give a *** about
my wellbeing as long as they keep getting paid to take minimal care of
me.  But regret?  No way, mate.  I'd do it all again if I had to."

Yeah you keep telling yourself that, mate.

And if my dad and his generation had been like you this post would have
been written in German, if it had been actually allowed to be written at
all.

Your dad and his generation didn't have a choice. Not only was it
compulsory but it was also a matter of national survival.

Your remark about writing/speaking German is worth remarking on
though, as it's frequently used as a way to describe the terrible
alternative to fighting Hitler.

First alternative: if we had not faught Germany, why exactly would we
be writing in German? We'd be an ally of Germany or at worst a trading
partner.

Because Hitler might have just marched in and conquered unchallenged,
perhaps even welcomed by some.

Definitely would have been welcome by some, especially in the
establishment/aristocracy.

The consequence would have made German an attractive second language
to learn.

I don't think there'd be any choice about our new second language but
the "you'd be writing in German" implies Adolf would have tried to
overturn hundreds of years of history and culture by trying to wipe
out English.

In one sense you're right. About Hitler "trying" to do so. I know of
no such deliberate design.
On the otherhand, as for "you'd be writing in German";
technically, the poster there wasn't talking singularly to you at the
time and so it might well be true of someone else.
Look at it this way, computers have being on sale in the high street
how long?
How many people wouldn't know how to switch one one?

Those born in the 30's would be touching 70 by now, be it out of a
sense of tradition or nationalism (the same reasoning applying to
joining an army) their their language of preference might well be
English. But, though perhaps not the same as comparing computer
useage, (languge accomplishment might be easier) what % of todays
population wouldn't be inclined to speak German?
Look at how long it has taken for other national languages to return
from the brink of extintion following English conquest.


In fact being an (Axis) ally of Germany would arguably have meant we
retained our Superpower status and our Empire (since we'd be an ally
of Japan too) for longer; not to mention retained large parts of
Coventry too.

If conquered by Germany, might not that British empire not then become
Germany's?

I was talking about if we were an Ally of Germany.

An Ally that might not leave much choice over language.


But even if Great Britain had been conquered it doesn't follow that
places like Canada or Australia, New Zealand, India, etc would fall.

I'm pretty sure the plan was to ship out our brave (or heroic) Royal
family, brave Government people and/or other brave so-called VIPs to
Canada in the event of an invasion, leaving the masses who were
defending the country face Nazi oppression/punishment.

Second alternative: if we had been conquered by Germany, why would
they make us change our language? Did they make the French change
their language to German after 1940?

Yes. Firstly, those Frenchies who could speak German were regarded
more favourably (but in some case more of a perceived threat).
The natural evolution that often happens would have started on its
path had the Nazis had enough time.

I don't believe it's possible to overturn centuries of culture,
history and language within decades. And I doubt even a lunatic like
Hitler really believed his Reich would be still standing in 1000
years.

At 'worst' we'd all have been forced to speak a second language.

Well, yes, I remember been 'forced' to study Gaelic-Irish at a time
when I didn't even have English.
English could have become the second language.

That said, in your opening paragraph you pointed out that being in the
army was compulsory AND  "a matter of national survival"

So, there it was a matter of national survival, but now German as a
2nd language is the worst that could have happened. You sound
confused.

No, you seem to be confusing "national survival" (the removal of our
nation status, ie becoming a regional puppet/colony of Germany) and
the "worst" that could have happened with regard to our language.

So, not an Ally?



Even having said that, the idea that we'd still be under occupation
till this day is utterly preposterous. A Nazi occupied Europe from the
Urals to the Atlantic would have crumbled within 20 years; probably a
lot sooner.

Even a Nazi Germany confined to Germany or so-called "Greater Germany"
would have imploded/dissolved decades ago, just like other European
fascist regimes did.

You mean like the British Empire?

If you mean the British Empire was a fascist regime, then no, of
course not. The British Empire overall was one of the most benevolent
Empires in the history of the world. That may explain the fondness
with which it, and this country, is still held within the
Commonwealth.

Fuuny that, because much of why it seems so un PC to privately wave
the British Flag, other than possibly its design flaws (its the uglist
flag I can think of) has to do with its perceived sins of the past in
those colonies.

But that aside, I was not inferring to those perceived sins. I was in
fact simply agreeing with you on the general point of Empires coming
to an end.



If you mean the British Empire dissolved a few years after the war
even though we "won"? Yes. Probably because the Empire, far from being
ruthlessly exploited by us, was actually a colossal drain on our
economy and resources.

Which might explain at the height of our power when we owned 25% of
the planet, millions of people in Great Britain lived in abject
poverty and misery.

And maybe it's just coincidence, along the victory of a leftwing
Government, that the standard of living for British people rose
considerably the moment we dumped the dead weight of our colonies;
whereas the standard of living for the masses in our former colonies
probably hasn't risen at all in any significant way in 60 years.

Any comparison between a Nazi Empire and the British Empire, either
while it existed or when it crumbled, is of course drivel.

While I detest the invasion of Iraq and the futile expedition into
Afghanistan

Then why are you trying to compare it to (your dad's expeditons in)
WWII?

I'm thankful that there are 'idiots' who care enough to put
their lives on the line for this country,

You just said they were futile and detestible wars, now you're saying
it's in defence of this country. You seem confused.

Open your mind a wee bit can't you.
You might join the army out of a sense of purpose and nationalism
entailing such risks. That  is seperate from how such sentiments might
end up being exploited.

It doesn't change the fact that if you think a war is futile and
detestable, it's silly to then defend it - for example by comparing it
to an entirely necessary war like WWII.

I did not see such a comparison. I could quite easily see the seperate
issues he was highlighting.
Besides, why necessary... earlier you showed that Britain (actually,
you used the term "we") could have become an Ally and retained its
world positioin to boot.


Do you believe _everything_ a soldier does is in defence of their
country? Or even that everything they do in "defence of their country"
is by default immune from criticism or ridicule?

that this fucking shitty self
serving excuse of a government sent them to die in a pointless war
doesn't detract from their heroism.

"Hero", like its opposite number "terrorist", is such an over(mis)used
word it's become meaningless. And it never really had much meaning to
begin with, outside of propaganda and comic books.

Actually, he said "heroism2 not "Hero", so it's opposite number would
be terrorism.

But I said "hero", so the opposite number is "terrorist". Either way I
fail to see your point, if you have one.

So you were not really responding to his post, but just wanted to pass
off something like as if you were.



Some people, you're obviously not one, can see seperate meanings. You
see, terrorism is a bit one sided. A child living in terror of a
parent is not ordinarily recognised as being a victim of terrorism.
Not even, I would suggest, if said parent were a terrorist in the
political sense.
And that's the biggest difference, you see, Heroism is not dependant
on political recognition.

Except we're talking about soldiers fighting (political) opponents not
firemen rescuing people from burning buildings. So, dependent or not,
in this case both are entirely political.

But Heroism can be seperate from politics , whereas terrorism can't...
though I often think that's grossly unfair to the many who suffer from
under its unpolitical forms.



I wasn't even making a point about terrorism, except to say the term
is redundant like the word hero. And if you don't believe that,
explain why Bin Laden is a heroic hero to millions of people.

But because the terms do not follow parralel paths of meaning, though
the word terrorism might seem redundant due to onesidedness (flawed),
Hero stands independant from that flaw and so is not equally
meaningless.


What is heroic about taking orders and having your life wasted
thousands of miles away from home because a bunch of politicians have
a small *** complex? It's brainless.

So you have a small ***. Thank's, but that is really far more
information than we needed.

Okay, thanks for finally confirming you're so subnormal and infantile
you can't or won't understand the simplest of statements.

Btw, you might like to stop referring to "we", unless I missed your
recent election to some kind of spokesperson for other people in this
group.

That would be the same reference to "we" (and "our) as you allowed
yourself to apply several times so far.


Or is "we" just the voices in your head?

It's far more "heroic" - if you want to use that word - to take a
stand _against_ your own Government (which, like the Army, should be
the servant of the people; not vice versa) because it's harder to
resist Power than to accept and conform.

There are examples of such heroism in other countries (dictatorships)
where the Army has been ordered to fire on or otherwise attack the
people of their own country and they have refused.

These wouldn't be cases of national survival. They're usually
peacefully protesting, unarmed citizens. i.e. no suicide bomber
suspects, no trap involved.

Yet again you fail entirely to read or understand what I wrote (clue:
it's about how soldiers who disobey orders to fire on their own people
are far more heroic than those who would brainlessly obey any order,
regardless) and instead you just ramble on about something else
entirely - "national survival", "suicide bombers"...

So, it's about not looking beyond the limitations you've invented,
sorry, introduced.


So the belief that
soldiers should _always_ obey orders is not only incorrect but
actually treasonous (whereas the wrong assumption is that if a soldier
refuses an order that is in itself treasonous).

So how dare you try and tell anyone they should show unstinting
respect to some, frankly, god damn idiot like the one he described
just because he wore a uniform and was happy to take orders without
thinking of or caring about the consequences.

God dam idiots like inflexible, closed minded fuckwits like you, was
that what you meant?

lol

And here is where mask of relative sanity finally slips and you
totally lose it.

Who tf are you to decide on the bases of consequences or preparedness
for loss whether someone is a idiot or not.

I'm me. Who are you to ask?

One definition of idiot: somebody who is happy, after the event, to
have become a vegetable without any consequential benefit to anything
or anybody else anywhere.

And you're qualified on the subject?
Happy you had the chance and took it to have your say... even though
what you have spouted doesn't look so cool now?
Or would you choose regret, which by default would include regret at
having the chance to have your say?



Do you know anything about lives and loves outside your tiny little
mind?

Don't assume everybody else also has other people living in their
heads.

You're the one with the most "we"s and "our"s. (-:



But please, if you know this god damn idiot personally, please feel
free to provide some examples about his super intellect.

Are you qualified to judge?
No! Thought not.

lol

There go the voices again, answering your own questions. Apparently
you, or Voice #2, are qualified to judge how qualified I am.
Impressive.

It's called reasonable deduction. I see you haven't been able to
refute it.


Without refering to WWII, or any other past 'clean' wars or conflicts
(ie, that didn't turn into quagmires), please explain why a person,
because they wear a uniform, should be idolised and defended,
regardless of whatever else they do, say and think in their lives.

I'll take the question on defended first. With idiots attacking
them... there's your answer.

No it's _your_ answer. I'll write it in even simpler terms since you
are clearly a total moron: why should _everybody_/other people idolise
and defend somebody just because they wear a uniform?

Er,, trying to move the goal post AGAIN I see.
Look up. Your reference to "everyone" was in the 'singular', i.e. "why
should A person...."


As for idolised. I haven't read anyone put forward that suggestion. No
on'es said, or even hinted they should be worshipped, allowed to
commit any crime the wish, anywhere the choose.

Since when did being worshipped (like a hero) mean being allowed to
commit any crime? Who mentioned crime?

No one's offered them
a get out from behaving in a civilised fashion, either here or there.

Just so you know, the discussion is about the soundness of mind of a
person who says they're so happy to be a vegetable they'd do it all
again given the chance.

Then why didn't you stick to the discussion and leave out the
idolising that hadn't been introduced?


Maybe you mean rewarded.

No I mean idolised. Hence the use of the word "idolised".

You know, how people who are described as "heroic" are "idolised", not
merely "rewarded".

Well, if you might want to break down the reward into £.. and nothing
else, but then I was going for the broader version which included from
simple gratitude to great respect

If so, wtf are you to try to dictate what others may consider worthy
of reward?

I'm not. I'm asking why a god damn idiot shouldn't be criticised or
commented about negatively, for his god damn idiotic belief.

I'd prefer to critise someone in the army for slating other faction
within thir effort, when they themselves are "loosing" 6000 rounds a
day, getting nowhere against an enemy that has nowt but sandals and
Toyotas!
But that seems so un pc doesn't it?

.