James McClean

I think you missed the point of what I meant when I used the word Arabs, but I'll have to let that slide as you seem a bit dim.
2. No, but they choose to sign up for the forces. 3. The only reason they're doing that is because they've ****ed it up through previous military action. Don't fool yourself into thinking they're over there for humanitarian reasons, because they're not.

The politicians may put them there but the soldiers decided to join up. They deserve as much blame as anyone else for the practically terrorist actions performed by the British and American armed forces over the past decade or so.

Even putting aside the Middle East issues, there's the fact that British troops slaughtered countless innocent Irish citizens (Yes, not all were innocent but a lot were) over the years. That's something else I can't support, because unlike you I have a conscience I can't ignore murder for the sake of patriotism.

 

Just because someone has a differing opinion and points out their take on things means they are dim??? Really?

So soldiers sign up because they want to 'shoot arabs in the head'or want to be terrorists? I disagree!

The reasons for signing up are manyfold and much more complex. Pride, history (family and country), unemployment, self betterment (ie learning skills for future development/prospects) so i have to take issue with your sweeping generalisation.

Lets look at WWI and WWII and think about the consequences of our descendents not having the balls to go and put their lives on the line/give their lives for what we take for granted today. Doesn't bear thinking about IMO!

And whilst the wars we have been involved in today might not be as clear cut as those of the past, most if not all have been fought to protect our way of living today....so unless you want to give the falklands back or stop using oil based products, or accept that things like the twin towers/london bombings will just happen then war will continue to occur. Note NI is slightly different going back to 1688 and has seen attrocities committed by both sides (which are commerorated by both sides alike but in teh end a death is a death whatever side it is on, it is someones father/son/husband/brother).

 

Our way of living would be fine if we stopped interfering in other people's ways of living. I've said all along that I don't include people who served in either WW in this. They served when Britain was genuinely under threat, and it's an insult to them that modern soldiers are put in the same group.

Things like the Twin Towers and the London bombings have only occured because of our (and United States') continual interference in the Middle East.

 

there you are my biach, been telling everyone how you suck my cock

 

well said rep

 

well said rep

 

If the shoe were on the other foot I'd have respect for the dead as I'd probably know someone who lost a relative or friend in one of the wars. I genuinely would wear a poppy. Our players will wear Wonga next year for 40+ games but may not agree with gambling.
I'd also think about the 40,000 fans who pay my wages watching from the stands.
Hey though, that's just me.
It's good to see lively debate in what is a very emotive topic for all.

 

Very different though ACS. Wearing Wonga is one thing. Wearing a symbol of a cause which gives money to support men and women who are part of an organisation who murdered innocent people in your community is a different ball game, and different set of emotions. I think unless you have been in that scenario and seen the pain that bloody sunday and other incidents caused to your own community, it is difficult to know how you would feel. He wasn't trying to disrespect the british forces, he was trying to show some respect to his own community.

As someone with several relatives in the forces who put their lives at risk for us on a daily basis, and someone who respects the freedoms I enjoy now, I'll always support the poppy appeal.

 

I love slating the smb however they are as annoyed about it as we are
The bloke is a tit not for this but in general

 

Now that is something we can all agree on! Did I mention he moves like a bounding ape?

 

I was about to say he thinks like one too, but that would be an insult to Apes.

 

I heard he also has a poster of fat sam on his wall

 

With his height he may end up signing for him at some stage. Maybe when Fat Sam replaces Jose at Real..............

 

A distinct possibility.

 

This really is almost childishly over simplified. To suggest that the difference between you and those who regard servicemen as worthy of respect is that you have a conscience which the others lack is either hugely arrogant, hugely ignorant, or both.

a few facts which I think you shuld be able to agree with:

Armies are, unfortunately, necessary. The world is a scary place with scary people in it. An armed deterrent is therefore necessary. Wish it wasn't.

If armies are necessary, so are soldiers to serve in them.

Saying that soldiers are necessary is another way of saying we need them.

so long as soldiers are doing what we need them to do they deserve our respect.

What we need them to do is to serve with courage and restraint in the conflicts to which our representatives send them.

With very few exceptions, the British army serves with courage and with restraint. No organisation is perfect, but the British army is excellent, as its history shows.

You may disagree with the conflicts into which the soldiers are sent. You may question the motives of those who sign up. That is an area for endless debate.

Unless you think that the world is currently onw in which we can do without an army though, then you cannot, except a the expense of really despicable hypocrisy, do less than respect the people who do the job that we need them to do.


Or, more simply, grow up.