Why Industrial Cable Gland Connectors...
Business & Finance2 mins ago
Why The Need To Wash Their Dirty Linen In Public?
74 Answers
http://
Pretty damming stuff, but who can gain from making this report public, except our enemies?
Pretty damming stuff, but who can gain from making this report public, except our enemies?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Our standards and values must be preserved as far as possible. That isn't happening at the moment.
-----------------------
They are and it is, it's just that on occasion something so heinous and incomprehensible happens that the rules have to be circumvented for a little while in order to preserve further life, that's just how it is.
-----------------------
They are and it is, it's just that on occasion something so heinous and incomprehensible happens that the rules have to be circumvented for a little while in order to preserve further life, that's just how it is.
Obviously I wasn't aog. I've heard from many who were that morale remained high despite the bombing. It's also documented that figures on the effects of bombing were massaged to strengthen the case for the allied bombing campaign. I'm immensely grateful for the efforts and sacrifices made in WWII, but I don't think that the people of the time should have had carte blanche to do whatever took their fancy.
jim360
/// but I don't think that the people of the time should have had carte blanche to do whatever took their fancy. ///
Then please tell me jim what would your answer be, the other side sends over hundreds of planes to bomb our people, should we have just sat back and said "ah let it go, we are not going to sink to their levels"?
/// but I don't think that the people of the time should have had carte blanche to do whatever took their fancy. ///
Then please tell me jim what would your answer be, the other side sends over hundreds of planes to bomb our people, should we have just sat back and said "ah let it go, we are not going to sink to their levels"?
Trying to compare the armageddon of WW2 to now is not particularly useful, all out war changes the goalposts dramatically. Like Sadam, Hitler placed his most important production factories in the most populus areas human shields in civilian centres ergo to damage the material strength of the Third Riech, they got bombed, revenge bombings were not something we did much of, not saying we didn't but that was more Hitlers bag.
Intel played its part then but it's all changed now, conflict is different and despite all the technology we have human intelligence is still some of the most yuseful stuff there is. When push comes to shove you do what you have to to ensure the security of the nation otherwise we'd be as well opeining the dorrs to whoever wants to take over.... oh hang on....
Intel played its part then but it's all changed now, conflict is different and despite all the technology we have human intelligence is still some of the most yuseful stuff there is. When push comes to shove you do what you have to to ensure the security of the nation otherwise we'd be as well opeining the dorrs to whoever wants to take over.... oh hang on....
Setting aside whether or not it should have been done, i think if it was done then that knowledge should be made public, also an honest assessment of the outcomes, including how successful it was, which it appears not to have been. Surely if one believes that something is right, or at least justified, there should be no objection to being open about all aspects of it?
its interesting to me that the OP uses the phrase "dirty linen" which is not usually used for activities which are considered to be "right" or justified.....
its interesting to me that the OP uses the phrase "dirty linen" which is not usually used for activities which are considered to be "right" or justified.....
woofgang
/// its interesting to me that the OP uses the phrase "dirty linen" which is not usually used for activities which are considered to be "right" or justified..... ///
Who said I said it was right and justified? But it obviously happened so what good can come from admitting to all and sundry what actually went off?
All it will do is to give further ammunition to our enemies plus multiple claims of compensation from those said enemies who will queue up in their dozens to claim they have been victims.
/// its interesting to me that the OP uses the phrase "dirty linen" which is not usually used for activities which are considered to be "right" or justified..... ///
Who said I said it was right and justified? But it obviously happened so what good can come from admitting to all and sundry what actually went off?
All it will do is to give further ammunition to our enemies plus multiple claims of compensation from those said enemies who will queue up in their dozens to claim they have been victims.
I think that if the 'Geneva convention' is unilateral then all bets are off, no turning the other cheek, meet like with like, by any means (is the truth drug used)?. I am fed up with our boys having their hands tied with barbarians who consider our democratic approach with contempt. Regarding Dresden, we were bombed for 76 consecutive days by the Germans, so we bombed Dresden, why not, it was war. Pity Bush and Blare lied, the truth in my opinion is quite palatable.
// Then please tell me jim what would your answer be, the other side sends over hundreds of planes to bomb our people, should we have just sat back and said "ah let it go, we are not going to sink to their levels"'? //
Hmm... I'm glad I was not in charge at the time. I don't really know what I would have done. Still, it seems to me that the guiding principle ought to have been doing what was necessary to defend our country. In the dark days of 1940, and in particular if the Germans had ever got a full invasion going, then frankly I'd have supported pretty much anything it took to defend the country, even if it were futile, no matter how horrible -- I suppose this shows that every man has his moral breaking point.
The point is that it's not clear how bombing the crap out of civilians in anyway helped to defend our country. Many of the worst incidents took place in the later days of the war, when victory was a matter of time and the threat to our own shores was diminished. In those circumstances it's harder to justify crossing the line, surely?
In terms of the debate at hand, as above I've said that there is a line somewhere beyond which I too would support "circumventing the rules" as CD puts it. I suppose in that case I'm just far from convinced that we are anywhere near it at the moment. Terrorism is nasty, vicious, evil and a threat to security, but the threat is at a level that, no matter the hyperbole, cannot be said to threaten our nation in the same way that an all-out war on the scale of 1939-1945 would. The tragedies of Dave Hennings, Lee Rigby, the victims of 7/7 and 9/11, are all horrific, shocking, terrible, inexcusable, and we must work hard to minimise them. But at the same time I don't think that they are big enough tragedies or threats to justify crossing that moral line yet. Given that we also seem not to trust our leaders all that much, it does seem surprising that people seem willing to accept so easily that they've got it right on an issue as massive as this.
It's important to hold our security services, be they police, soldiers or intelligence agencies, to high standards. In that sense the publication of this report is worthwhile, because it shows that we do have standards and can at least recognise when we're breaking them. I fear that lately we have been doing so too quickly.
Hmm... I'm glad I was not in charge at the time. I don't really know what I would have done. Still, it seems to me that the guiding principle ought to have been doing what was necessary to defend our country. In the dark days of 1940, and in particular if the Germans had ever got a full invasion going, then frankly I'd have supported pretty much anything it took to defend the country, even if it were futile, no matter how horrible -- I suppose this shows that every man has his moral breaking point.
The point is that it's not clear how bombing the crap out of civilians in anyway helped to defend our country. Many of the worst incidents took place in the later days of the war, when victory was a matter of time and the threat to our own shores was diminished. In those circumstances it's harder to justify crossing the line, surely?
In terms of the debate at hand, as above I've said that there is a line somewhere beyond which I too would support "circumventing the rules" as CD puts it. I suppose in that case I'm just far from convinced that we are anywhere near it at the moment. Terrorism is nasty, vicious, evil and a threat to security, but the threat is at a level that, no matter the hyperbole, cannot be said to threaten our nation in the same way that an all-out war on the scale of 1939-1945 would. The tragedies of Dave Hennings, Lee Rigby, the victims of 7/7 and 9/11, are all horrific, shocking, terrible, inexcusable, and we must work hard to minimise them. But at the same time I don't think that they are big enough tragedies or threats to justify crossing that moral line yet. Given that we also seem not to trust our leaders all that much, it does seem surprising that people seem willing to accept so easily that they've got it right on an issue as massive as this.
It's important to hold our security services, be they police, soldiers or intelligence agencies, to high standards. In that sense the publication of this report is worthwhile, because it shows that we do have standards and can at least recognise when we're breaking them. I fear that lately we have been doing so too quickly.
jim360
/// The point is that it's not clear how bombing the crap out of civilians in anyway helped to defend our country. Many of the worst incidents took place in the later days of the war, when victory was a matter of time and the threat to our own shores was diminished. In those circumstances it's harder to justify crossing the line, surely? ///
The war was not over until they signed that bit of paper. Even at the very end Hitler was still devising weapons of mass destruction (where have I heard that before) he had already launched V1 and V2s against this country.
/// In that sense the publication of this report is worthwhile, because it shows that we do have standards and can at least recognise when we're breaking them. ///
Ah yes, those murdering cut-throats are now going to realise that we are jolly good fellows who have a sense of humanity and fair play, so we now must change our ways and start to behave like them?????????????
Yes like hell they will, this is not the playing fields of Eaton you know Jim.
/// The point is that it's not clear how bombing the crap out of civilians in anyway helped to defend our country. Many of the worst incidents took place in the later days of the war, when victory was a matter of time and the threat to our own shores was diminished. In those circumstances it's harder to justify crossing the line, surely? ///
The war was not over until they signed that bit of paper. Even at the very end Hitler was still devising weapons of mass destruction (where have I heard that before) he had already launched V1 and V2s against this country.
/// In that sense the publication of this report is worthwhile, because it shows that we do have standards and can at least recognise when we're breaking them. ///
Ah yes, those murdering cut-throats are now going to realise that we are jolly good fellows who have a sense of humanity and fair play, so we now must change our ways and start to behave like them?????????????
Yes like hell they will, this is not the playing fields of Eaton you know Jim.
/Ah yes, those murdering cut-throats are now going to realise that we are jolly good fellows who have a sense of humanity and fair play/
I wouldn't assume these things are done with the enemy in mind.
Like any admission of wrong-doing it is primarily a self-cleansing process.
The Report (and the US openness it demonstartes) is a positive aspect of American democracy and its most important audiences will be their allies and the American people themselves.
I wouldn't assume these things are done with the enemy in mind.
Like any admission of wrong-doing it is primarily a self-cleansing process.
The Report (and the US openness it demonstartes) is a positive aspect of American democracy and its most important audiences will be their allies and the American people themselves.
The tragedies of Dave Hennings, Lee Rigby, the victims of 7/7 and 9/11, are all horrific, shocking, terrible, inexcusable, and we must work hard to minimise them. But at the same time I don't think that they are big enough tragedies or threats to justify crossing that moral line yet.
--------------------
Kerrist, I hate to think what they would have to do in your world to warrant the gloves coming off! 50 Beslan's maybe? 10 9/11"s?
You simply cannot keep turning the other cheek jim, it gets very sore.
--------------------
Kerrist, I hate to think what they would have to do in your world to warrant the gloves coming off! 50 Beslan's maybe? 10 9/11"s?
You simply cannot keep turning the other cheek jim, it gets very sore.
AOG -- I'm not naive enough to expect that Al-Qaeda, etc., will reform as a result of admitting our own mistakes. Regardless of what we do they'll twist it to suit their own ends. That's what evil does. But from our own standpoint it does ourselves credit if we can admit when we were wrong, and hopefully that will lead to changes on our own end as necessary.
As to CD's latest riposte... I'm not advocating turning the other cheek, or doing nothing, but there is in my opinion plenty of room to deal with the threats terrorism places without abandoning moral standards as easily as we have done. There is a middle ground.
As to CD's latest riposte... I'm not advocating turning the other cheek, or doing nothing, but there is in my opinion plenty of room to deal with the threats terrorism places without abandoning moral standards as easily as we have done. There is a middle ground.
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles47 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles68 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles73 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles77 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.