Jump to content


The Anglo-Teutonic Axis. (A what if)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
83 replies to this topic

Dennis420b #21 Posted 08 June 2014 - 05:09 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26938 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013
If the way you feel changes by shifting perspective, then your decision was biased. If you are biased you are not looking at it pragmatically and thus are using sentiment disguised as reason.

Edited by Dennis420b, 08 June 2014 - 05:12 AM.


rainsilent #22 Posted 08 June 2014 - 05:17 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 4253 battles
  • 2,967
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013
Supporting the soldiers is very different than how you make it look. If that is actually how you see it you have a very naive view on it.

http://forum-console.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/25926-package-fixes-and-suggestions/

My list of suggested package changes. Matthew J35u5 has one as well. I suggest you take a look at his too and make your own suggestions in either.


Dennis420b #23 Posted 08 June 2014 - 05:44 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26938 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View Postrainsilent, on 08 June 2014 - 12:17 AM, said:

Supporting the soldiers is very different than how you make it look. If that is actually how you see it you have a very naive view on it.

Its a volunteer military. Why would I support them with taxes. I dont support people wanting to be apart of a criminal organization though and perpetrating the ,myth of the soldier "fighting for freedom". They are either stupid, homicidal or just have the flag wrapped around thier eyes a little too much preventing them from seeing reality.

Soldier is a noble profession, but not if that military is engaging in criminal activity.



rainsilent #24 Posted 08 June 2014 - 12:06 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 4253 battles
  • 2,967
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 08 June 2014 - 01:44 AM, said:

Its a volunteer military. Why would I support them with taxes. I dont support people wanting to be apart of a criminal organization though and perpetrating the ,myth of the soldier "fighting for freedom". They are either stupid, homicidal or just have the flag wrapped around thier eyes a little too much preventing them from seeing reality.

Soldier is a noble profession, but not if that military is engaging in criminal activity.

 

There is where your naive view comes from. They aren't volunteering to do criminal activity. I'm also not saying support them with taxes. Soldiers are volunteering to protect civilians and their freedom. Nothing more. Yes there are people going into the service to disguise themselves as soldiers and some leaders might as well be criminals but that is more a failure on the part of the civilians and restrictions on who can get into the service. If you are so naive that you don't want volunteer soldiers protecting your freedom I'd love to see how your view would change under a more oppressive government. I don't support criminals. I support those that volunteer to fight for my freedom and ability to remove those criminals from office.


http://forum-console.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/25926-package-fixes-and-suggestions/

My list of suggested package changes. Matthew J35u5 has one as well. I suggest you take a look at his too and make your own suggestions in either.


AngryCalf574148 #25 Posted 08 June 2014 - 12:16 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 10292 battles
  • 2,305
  • [P4NDA]
  • Member since:
    08-30-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 08 June 2014 - 06:44 AM, said:

Its a volunteer military. Why would I support them with taxes. I dont support people wanting to be apart of a criminal organization though and perpetrating the ,myth of the soldier "fighting for freedom". They are either stupid, homicidal or just have the flag wrapped around thier eyes a little too much preventing them from seeing reality.

Soldier is a noble profession, but not if that military is engaging in criminal activity.

Say that to a soldier, I dare you.

 

 

On a more serious note, don't blame the soldier, blame the politician who sent him there. 


1st wave EU Beta Tester

​Immortals Member

 


WidowMaker1711 #26 Posted 08 June 2014 - 12:36 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11951 battles
  • 10,011
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostDennis420b, on 08 June 2014 - 06:44 AM, said:

Its a volunteer military. Why would I support them with taxes. I dont support people wanting to be apart of a criminal organization though and perpetrating the ,myth of the soldier "fighting for freedom". They are either stupid, homicidal or just have the flag wrapped around thier eyes a little too much preventing them from seeing reality.

Soldier is a noble profession, but not if that military is engaging in criminal activity.

 

I get what you are saying. And I agree. But its not a Soldiers decision as to where he goes and what he does. The decision lays in the hands of Politicians AND Lawyers. The Soldier is there to a job, like anyone else, and do it they do with PRIDE. Politicians and Lawyers are both a necessary evil. And YES people will say Lawyers don't have anything to do with it, but, at least here in the UK we only followed the US into Iraq especially, only after consulting with Lawyers at the UN, The Hague etc to ensure we weren't breaching the Geneva Convention.

 

 

 

 


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 


Dennis420b #27 Posted 08 June 2014 - 01:51 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26938 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View Postrainsilent, on 08 June 2014 - 07:06 AM, said:

 

There is where your naive view comes from. They aren't volunteering to do criminal activity. I'm also not saying support them with taxes. Soldiers are volunteering to protect civilians and their freedom. Nothing more. Yes there are people going into the service to disguise themselves as soldiers and some leaders might as well be criminals but that is more a failure on the part of the civilians and restrictions on who can get into the service. If you are so naive that you don't want volunteer soldiers protecting your freedom I'd love to see how your view would change under a more oppressive government. I don't support criminals. I support those that volunteer to fight for my freedom and ability to remove those criminals from office.


Oh no the soldiers motives are the only genuine ones. But the naivety is in the soldier not researching the actions of his government and thus what he is actually supporting. There is no threat to the US or the UK. Both are secure in their freedom, and its not because they are illegally attacking country's, killing thousands of civilians, overthrowing minor nations governments and committing war crimes. That's naive. Explain to me how countries like Iraq and Afghanistan was going to topple our governments and or invade and subjugate us. If you believe in stupid movies like Red Dawn I guess it seems possible but that is a load of (edit). Honestly there still is no nation that could threaten the US's freedom and thanks to NATO the UK is pretty secure as well. Vietnam, Korea, Iraq part I and II, Afghanistan were all motivated by political and economic means, not by protecting the people. The soldier is the one being dupped with that "Lets fight them over there so we dont have to fight them here" in the 2000s and the "Domino effect" of the Cold War is just justification and fluff for the masses to agree to another war of aggression and occupation.

Why dont you come up with a plausible scenario for any wars, either the UK or US has been in over the last 50 years that we "had" to fight to protect our "freedom". Explain the logistics of the situation. I think that Iraq had a couple of Polnochy B landing craft built by the soviets in the cold war, so they could in theory I guess invade key west (or Jersey Island), but to supply that invasion they would need far more ships. Afghanistan is land locked and had virtually no air force so its ability to sustain an invasion is a bit lacking. I would suggest Argentina, during the Falklands war but come on, thats just silly, and is the Falkland islands really a british property or is it just hold over land from an empire built on conquest and oppression? British people, where they are supposed to be (in Britain not half way around the world) are safe enough.

Naive? I guess if you call knowing what an invasion would require and understanding that NO nation possesses that realistic capability and making the assessment that these wars are just for economics is naive, then color me naive.

I dont hate soldiers, I hate the stupidity that them killing and being killed for the interest of Wall street is some how tied to preserving OUR (the peoples) freedom. I hate that the next generation of corporate enforcers are being cultivated now using nationalist sentiment and propaganda. The soldier may believe he is protecting his people, but the reality is far from that myth.


Edited by Dennis420b, 08 June 2014 - 01:54 PM.


Dennis420b #28 Posted 08 June 2014 - 02:05 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26938 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostVictorious Nox, on 08 June 2014 - 07:16 AM, said:

Say that to a soldier, I dare you.

 

 

On a more serious note, don't blame the soldier, blame the politician who sent him there. 


I dont blame the soldier for the war accept that his naivety and good nature are being taken advantage of. But if a German soldier has no expectation of being cleared of guilt by "just following orders" as the standard set after WW2 than I dont think that American or British soldiers can use that excuse either. The Nuremberg trials set the standard that EVERY person regardless of duty or consequence is responsible for their actions based upon what a reasonable person could see as acceptable. We executed many Germans who were just following orders, only to behave like warmongers a half century latter.



Dennis420b #29 Posted 08 June 2014 - 02:14 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26938 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostWidowMaker1711, on 08 June 2014 - 07:36 AM, said:

 

I get what you are saying. And I agree. But its not a Soldiers decision as to where he goes and what he does. The decision lays in the hands of Politicians AND Lawyers. The Soldier is there to a job, like anyone else, and do it they do with PRIDE. Politicians and Lawyers are both a necessary evil. And YES people will say Lawyers don't have anything to do with it, but, at least here in the UK we only followed the US into Iraq especially, only after consulting with Lawyers at the UN, The Hague etc to ensure we weren't breaching the Geneva Convention.

 

 

 

 


I  understand and thank you for going down that extremely unpopular rabbit hole with me. But here is the thing. If I go and work for a criminal organization even if only in a support role than I am still part of that criminal organization. I may simply be the mechanic who works on the cars legally, but I am a part all the same. A piece of a machine that commits crime. If I did no research before becoming involved than I have no expectation of ignorance as a defense. You are after all supposed to look before you leap, and as anything with the military is such a huge commitment anyways I believe that there is a reasonable assumption that anyone making that commitment had properly researched the activity's of their government and the possible illegal or unethical activitys they had been involved with. This would in fact shatter any myth that we or our freedom are in need of protection by going to war with some of the poorest nations in the world.



Dennis420b #30 Posted 08 June 2014 - 02:23 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26938 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013
Now my true feelings are that a soldier is a noble profession. But as the standard was set after Nuremberg every soldier who willfully engages in anything considered a war crime should have no expectation that he has any grounds for defense. And keep in mind that I am only seeing this pragmatically as is fair. If I were to involve personal or national sentiment in the consideration than I would be stepping on a standard we used to execute and incarcerate countless people, making our morality in the conduct of war a farce. Essentially the argument made against me was one of morality, "good vs evil", I argued that no such evidence supports that in reality. And if we are to hold others to a standard let us also be judged by that same standard. To argue the morality of our actions and then make excuses when that morality is called into question latter is an exercise in hypocrisy.

AngryCalf574148 #31 Posted 08 June 2014 - 03:02 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 10292 battles
  • 2,305
  • [P4NDA]
  • Member since:
    08-30-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 08 June 2014 - 03:23 PM, said:

Now my true feelings are that a soldier is a noble profession. But as the standard was set after Nuremberg every soldier who willfully engages in anything considered a war crime should have no expectation that he has any grounds for defense. And keep in mind that I am only seeing this pragmatically as is fair. If I were to involve personal or national sentiment in the consideration than I would be stepping on a standard we used to execute and incarcerate countless people, making our morality in the conduct of war a farce. Essentially the argument made against me was one of morality, "good vs evil", I argued that no such evidence supports that in reality. And if we are to hold others to a standard let us also be judged by that same standard. To argue the morality of our actions and then make excuses when that morality is called into question latter is an exercise in hypocrisy.

Hmmm, okay im going to give you en example.

 

So in the UK A Royal Marine Commando has been sent to jail for 4 years for "mercy killing" a taliban fighter. Bearing in mind that this insurgent had (somehow) survived an Apache chaingun but had moments left to live. This Marine had served from the start of the Iraq War right up to last year in Afghanistan and had lost his father prior to this deployment, and also had seen many mates injured/maimed from IED's. He put a 9mm pistol to the insurgents chest and fired stating:

 

"Shuffle of this coil you [edited], its nothing you wouldn't do to us"

 

He was tried and was classed as guilty for "war crimes" and "unprofessionalism".

 

Do you agree or disagree with the verdict?


1st wave EU Beta Tester

​Immortals Member

 


WidowMaker1711 #32 Posted 08 June 2014 - 04:08 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11951 battles
  • 10,011
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostDennis420b, on 08 June 2014 - 03:14 PM, said:


I  understand and thank you for going down that extremely unpopular rabbit hole with me. But here is the thing. If I go and work for a criminal organization even if only in a support role than I am still part of that criminal organization. I may simply be the mechanic who works on the cars legally, but I am a part all the same. A piece of a machine that commits crime. If I did no research before becoming involved than I have no expectation of ignorance as a defense. You are after all supposed to look before you leap, and as anything with the military is such a huge commitment anyways I believe that there is a reasonable assumption that anyone making that commitment had properly researched the activity's of their government and the possible illegal or unethical activitys they had been involved with. This would in fact shatter any myth that we or our freedom are in need of protection by going to war with some of the poorest nations in the world.

 

But a criminal organisation won't punish you, villify you and your family and hang you out to dry if you refuse to do what they say. Criminals just offer you a pair of concrete boots, a concrete bed or a copper jacketed pill.

 

And criminals look out for their own. It seems soldiers have the worst part of the deal. Possibility of debilitating mental scars, possibility of losing limbs, possibility of become paraplegic. Not always a chance of a job when they finish service.

 

 

 

 

 


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 


Death pod 69 #33 Posted 08 June 2014 - 04:33 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 22848 battles
  • 258
  • Member since:
    10-11-2013

An interesting question.  One that Hitler had himself wanted per his books (yes plural, there is a second book he wrote and never published, check it out).

Anyway, Churchill was an ardent anti Nazi, anti Hitler.  He did not come to power until mid 1940.  Chamberlain was more prone to negotiate.  If Chamberlain stays and Dunkirk evacuation fails, plus your other situations (more successful U-boats and Battle of Britain) I believe there would be an armistice in late 1940.  That being the case, Germany would still have turned east.  It was always the ambition of Hitler to do so.  The battle of Nazism vs Communism.  What was fought in the streets of Germany in the 1920s-30s would have to play out on the global stage.  With no threat to the back door from the Brits and USA, I believe Germany pulls it out and pushes the Soviets to the Urals.  Remember the Italians attack into Greece delayed Barbarossa by several weeks which cost the Germans Moscow.  If no Britain, then no Italian North African adventure.  If Mussolini isn't playing in the war, and no Balkan adventures by him, then no delay to Barbarossa and Moscow falls before winter hits.  The USA would not be prone to care about USSR.  Roosevelt didn't want the UK to fall to the Germans and kept trying to precipitate a war with Germany in the Atlantic.  If there is no UBoat war, there is no antagonism for Roosevelt to play to with Germany.  The US population was still very isolationist.  Even after Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt had to figure out how to go to war with Germany.  Hitler made that easy by declaring war on the US on Dec 11.  So I guess another good question is, if Hitler doesn't declare war, is Roosevelt still able to pull the Americans into the European theater?



rainsilent #34 Posted 08 June 2014 - 07:49 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 4253 battles
  • 2,967
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 08 June 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

I dont hate soldiers, I hate the stupidity that them killing and being killed for the interest of Wall street is some how tied to preserving OUR (the peoples) freedom.

 

First I'll quote the part I agree with. Second this post shows how little you know of what was/is going on. Al queida attacked US civilians. They for all intensive purposes ran Afghanistan. That is why we went there. If you don't understand that than you are beyond help or understanding for whatever reason. Iraq was due to unfinished business combined with other smaller factors. Not significant enough in my mind to take the action we did.

 

Now in terms of the rest of it and who can threaten this country. I'll give you the most obvious first. Russia. Then North Korea and finally China. If you think neither are, can or have the ability in some way you must have been living under a rock for over a decade. Russia is in full position to start a war, North Korea has nukes and has what appears to be a leader nearly as crazy as his father and China has been trying to attack the US cyber wise for at least 5 years and can do more than just cyber attacks. Any of those 3 are in position to take out any country in at least one way.

 

Finally no soldier is naive to not join because of who is in office. It isn't their job. As was said before, "War is something fought on the desks of politicians. So long as they win in the end nothing else matters." Soldiers don't join based upon who is in office. They join strictly to protect the civilians and their rights.


http://forum-console.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/25926-package-fixes-and-suggestions/

My list of suggested package changes. Matthew J35u5 has one as well. I suggest you take a look at his too and make your own suggestions in either.


Party Poison91 #35 Posted 08 June 2014 - 08:12 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 16129 battles
  • 2,650
  • [X-OFF]
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 08 June 2014 - 04:45 AM, said:

I harbor no ill feelings towards the British. I rather think you have a unrealistic idealized vision of the history of the UK. I have no horse in the race. I do play devils advocate often but I dont really find the UK to be neither "Good" nor "Evil", and that the concept of a "good" nation or an "evil" one is all propaganda when looked at pragmatically. Hitlers use of race and heritage to justify wars of conquest and subsequent genocide are no different than the US expansionist foreign policy in the 1800s. "Manifest Destiny" was just a more successful and efficient "Lebensraum". The UK is not without its bloody hands, and neither is any other nation. You tend to (IMHO) paint the UK in a rosy light and gloss over cracks in the nice guy facade the UK wears. Again I have no horse in this race since I see all nations as bloody genocidal warmongers. I really dont hate British people, or any people for that matter. I see WW2 not in some emotional epic struggle of "good vs evil", but rather opposing ideology's competing for resources and power. If anything it was evil vs. a different brand of evil. Of course there are degrees, but that's just justification when in the perspective of the oppressed and murdered. Polish Jews in Auschwitz and Native Americans on the Trail of Tears have a lot in common, making the US no different than the Nazis. I guess a few decades go by and all is forgiven, but only if you win those wars. If you lose your shame is far reaching. So I guess Good and Evil are actually more like Victor and Vanquished? Making the dilemma of who is "good" and who is "evil" less about morals and more about perception and perspective. That falls under propaganda. ... and why I stay away from that argument and stick with facts.

Ultimatly the the British, German, American, Russian, French, etc, people are mostly just poor people being tossed around by their wealth ruling class's. Brand it as Capitalism, Fascism or Marxism the ideology just ends up being a tool for those in charge and a justification for its behavior. Capitalist democratic freedom loving good guys America, committed a more successful mass murder and genocide than Stalinist USSR or National Socialist Germany, so what is your criteria for "Good" and "Evil"? My quarrel is actually with your insistence that war is some kind of crusade of right and wrong. Thats exactly what the Joseph Goebbels and Carl Roves of the world want people to think about war. Why? So that they can get you poor people out in the service and do the bidding of the wealthy class. The slogan and ideology may change but its all a ploy to keep you believing in some nationalist nonsense and fighting for the "Cause". Yesterdays "Lebensraum" is today's "Enduring Freedom". War is tragic for all who have to participate. There is nothing noble about being locked in a death struggle with another human simply because the rich people in those nations dont like each other or are in competition. To buy into the propaganda cheapens those lives lost and helps keep alive the myths that propagate more wars.

My problem isn't that you are British, my problem is that you are a nationalist.

Riiiiiiiight. I talk about britains actions in the Second World War. Would you say we were evil and power hungry? We lost our empire, our wealth and our children so where exactly is the gain for us? Instead you say that we can't possibly have been a heroic, selfless nation during that time because we did baaaaad things a few hundred years before. You say I'm brainwashed by propaganda, I say you're brainwashed by having your head up your backside.


"That's a typical, shabby NAZI trick!"

Party Poison91 #36 Posted 08 June 2014 - 08:19 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 16129 battles
  • 2,650
  • [X-OFF]
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013

View PostVictorious Nox, on 08 June 2014 - 04:02 PM, said:

Hmmm, okay im going to give you en example.

 

So in the UK A Royal Marine Commando has been sent to jail for 4 years for "mercy killing" a taliban fighter. Bearing in mind that this insurgent had (somehow) survived an Apache chaingun but had moments left to live. This Marine had served from the start of the Iraq War right up to last year in Afghanistan and had lost his father prior to this deployment, and also had seen many mates injured/maimed from IED's. He put a 9mm pistol to the insurgents chest and fired stating:

 

"Shuffle of this coil you [edited], its nothing you wouldn't do to us"

 

He was tried and was classed as guilty for "war crimes" and "unprofessionalism".

 

Do you agree or disagree with the verdict?

Disagree. You have to understand a soldiers mentality. You're trained to kill, to shut off emotion and give in to bloodlust. That's not something that can just be switched off like a light. Living in those conditions for months or even years on end, seeing your friends killed and maimed and the possibility of it happening to you has a profound effect on the human mind. He needs help, not punishment.


"That's a typical, shabby NAZI trick!"

rainsilent #37 Posted 08 June 2014 - 08:20 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 4253 battles
  • 2,967
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 08 June 2014 - 10:14 AM, said:


I  understand and thank you for going down that extremely unpopular rabbit hole with me. But here is the thing. If I go and work for a criminal organization even if only in a support role than I am still part of that criminal organization. I may simply be the mechanic who works on the cars legally, but I am a part all the same. A piece of a machine that commits crime. If I did no research before becoming involved than I have no expectation of ignorance as a defense. You are after all supposed to look before you leap, and as anything with the military is such a huge commitment anyways I believe that there is a reasonable assumption that anyone making that commitment had properly researched the activity's of their government and the possible illegal or unethical activitys they had been involved with. This would in fact shatter any myth that we or our freedom are in need of protection by going to war with some of the poorest nations in the world.

 

A part of this has thinking that is so badly flawed that I can't find a word to describe it. Before I get to that a few points. Name me one country that is exempt from doing wrong. How about one person. You have nothing. Back to the flawed thinking. You are a part of that "criminal machine" so how about we try you for those crimes done? Don't be stupid and make such poor statements. The mechanic in your example had no ties outside of they happened to work on the cars. That is so beyond the principle or thinking of Nuremberg that it is approaching complete stupidity. Trying and holding those responsible is one thing. So is fair judgement to all by avoiding preferential treatment to nationalities. Both of which I fully support. Holding accountable everyone that so much as crossed paths is stupid to the nth degree and that is what you are suggesting. This has nothing to do with an extremely unpopular rabbit hole and everything to do with you apparently obsessing over the fact that everyone is guilty of one persons crime and you wanting to condemn everyone for it.


http://forum-console.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/25926-package-fixes-and-suggestions/

My list of suggested package changes. Matthew J35u5 has one as well. I suggest you take a look at his too and make your own suggestions in either.


rainsilent #38 Posted 08 June 2014 - 08:25 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 4253 battles
  • 2,967
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

View PostParty Poison91, on 08 June 2014 - 04:19 PM, said:

Disagree. You have to understand a soldiers mentality. You're trained to kill, to shut off emotion and give in to bloodlust. That's not something that can just be switched off like a light. Living in those conditions for months or even years on end, seeing your friends killed and maimed and the possibility of it happening to you has a profound effect on the human mind. He needs help, not punishment.

 

Agreed. The only thing he really did wrong were some distasteful words. The "mercy" killing I can easily see depending upon condition. The words were not worth punishing.


http://forum-console.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/25926-package-fixes-and-suggestions/

My list of suggested package changes. Matthew J35u5 has one as well. I suggest you take a look at his too and make your own suggestions in either.


Dennis420b #39 Posted 08 June 2014 - 10:25 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26938 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostVictorious Nox, on 08 June 2014 - 10:02 AM, said:

Hmmm, okay im going to give you en example.

 

So in the UK A Royal Marine Commando has been sent to jail for 4 years for "mercy killing" a taliban fighter. Bearing in mind that this insurgent had (somehow) survived an Apache chaingun but had moments left to live. This Marine had served from the start of the Iraq War right up to last year in Afghanistan and had lost his father prior to this deployment, and also had seen many mates injured/maimed from IED's. He put a 9mm pistol to the insurgents chest and fired stating:

 

"Shuffle of this coil you [edited], its nothing you wouldn't do to us"

 

He was tried and was classed as guilty for "war crimes" and "unprofessionalism".

 

Do you agree or disagree with the verdict?


Its not up to me. But his remarks do show intent. I am not sure what the policy is on "mercy killings". I wouldn't want to see someone suffer, but then again I wouldn't find myself in that situation, because I know better. Its a pretty loose definition of a "war crime".



Dennis420b #40 Posted 08 June 2014 - 10:28 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26938 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostWidowMaker1711, on 08 June 2014 - 11:08 AM, said:

 

But a criminal organisation won't punish you, villify you and your family and hang you out to dry if you refuse to do what they say. Criminals just offer you a pair of concrete boots, a concrete bed or a copper jacketed pill.

 

And criminals look out for their own. It seems soldiers have the worst part of the deal. Possibility of debilitating mental scars, possibility of losing limbs, possibility of become paraplegic. Not always a chance of a job when they finish service.

 

 

 

 

 


But again its a volunteer force.

Veterans should always receive the best we can offer. But not a higher standing. At least in the US it is very specific that they receive no plus to citizenship. Although some who know nothing about history would like to see that change.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users