Mid air collision over Porthcawl

[llantwit]

The Military is the attack dog of the state its last defence the contiuation of politics by other means.

I think that Col's general point is that the use of the military is far from a last resort, these days. It's used very often, indeed, and in wars of agression in far away lands, not in the defence of the home community.
The other point he makes is that the kids sent off to fight and die (or get poisoned by depleted uranium) are predominantly poor kids from poor areas who have little other choice, and who are aggressively courted by a military machine who make the most of their lack of other decent life choices.

@1927 it seems pretty clear to me that Col's argument is not naive, and it doesn't show a lack of understanding to me. It's quite clear.
The self-defence line of argument can't legitimately be used to defend the actions of military as it stands today. Because it's primary purpose is not to defend the nation, but to fight dodgy wars of aggression in foreign lands for spurious reasons.
I'm pretty sure that no-one is arguing that self-defence in the name of a community under attack is wrong, here. The col certainly wouldn't argue that.

 

[llantwit]

sfdvvdsvv

 

[1927]

I think that Col's general point is that the use of the military is far from a last resort, these days. It's used very often, indeed, and in wars of agression in far away lands, not in the defence of the home community.
The other point he makes is that the kids sent off to fight and die (or get poisoned by depleted uranium) are predominantly poor kids from poor areas who have little other choice, and who are aggressively courted by a military machine who make the most of their lack of other decent life choices.

@1927 it seems pretty clear to me that Col's argument is not naive, and it doesn't show a lack of understanding to me. It's quite clear.
The self-defence line of argument can't legitimately be used to defend the actions of military as it stands today. Because it's primary purpose is not to defend the nation, but to fight dodgy wars of aggression in foreign lands for spurious reasons.
I'm pretty sure that no-one is arguing that self-defence in the name of a community under attack is wrong, here. The col certainly wouldn't argue that.

I agree that we shouldnt be fighting wars that have fuck all to do with us, Iraq, Afghanistan etc and would happily withdraw all troops tomorrow, dont have any issue with you, The Col or Ddraig on that one. I only disagree in that I believe we should have a defence force, but that it appears that The Col and Ddraig both believe that the military by their very existence are evil and shouldnt be tolerated. I beleive its a nececcsary evil, for defence purposes, and the fact that Porthcawl isnt under imminent attack doesn't diminish my view about its necessity.

 

[dylanredefined]

almost none. the most likely event will be that the radar in the grob fucked up...

it's been a known issue since they retired chipmunks...

What radar ? Grob a trainer hasen't got a radar .Pilots messed up somehow
probably.Air experince flight are probably the fluffiest thing the military does
next to search and rescue.
Cadets are primary a youth organisation.Recruiting is a distant second purpose .Going off on one about how evil the military is seems in poor taste on this incident.No one wants to hoodwink people into joining it may shock you but Ross Kemps Tv show seems to be the biggest reason for people looking to join at the moment ,After the credit crunch .

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

What radar ? Grob a trainer hasen't got a radar .Pilots messed up somehow
probably.Air experince flight are probably the fluffiest thing the military does
next to search and rescue.
Cadets are primary a youth organisation.Recruiting is a distant second purpose .Going off on one about how evil the military is seems in poor taste on this incident.No one wants to hoodwink people into joining it may shock you but Ross Kemps Tv show seems to be the biggest reason for people looking to join at the moment ,After the credit crunch .

I amybe mistaken but one i flew in out of linton had radiar be screen centre console

 

[dylanredefined]

I amybe mistaken but one i flew in out of linton had radiar be screen centre console

I bow to your superior knowledge I googled and got a cockpit layout no apprent radar .It appears they were formation flying when something went wrong so radar wouldnt have saved them .
Did you have to wear parachute etc.When I flew in chipmunks had to wear all the gear great fun .Terrible shame lives were lost .

 

[llantwit]

it appears that The Col and Ddraig both believe that the military by their very existence are evil and shouldnt be tolerated. I beleive its a nececcsary evil, for defence purposes, and the fact that Porthcawl isnt under imminent attack doesn't diminish my view about its necessity.

Yeah, but they don't say that at all.
I 'm pretty sure they'd both agree with you that some kind of defence force is needed, just that it shouldn't look like the military we've got today.
From what they've said I think that Col and Ddraig believe that the 'defence' argument is used to justify military spending and a military aparatus that far exceeds the needs for simple defence (hence the New Zealand example - a country which maintains a defence force but does not think it necessary to have a military which could participate in the kinds of foreign adventures Britain has participated in almmost non-stop for the last century).
You seem to think they're wooly pacifists who want to leave us undefended. They aren't. They just imagine a military which is truly only a defence force.
I agree with them. I think that it's a pure myth that we need a military as big and and as expensive as ours, and that the defence argument is used as an alibi for maintaining an over-sized military that can be used for misguided disasters like Iraq.
The fact that Porthcawl isn't under immediate threat isn't just a simple argument about Porthcawl. The way they're using it it's an emblematic argument. Porthcawl in this case stands for the whole of Wales or the whole of the UK - the fact that none of 'our' communies (bar the Falklands, and NI, maybe - but should 'we' have been in either of these places in the 1st place?) haven't really been under threat from invasion in the last 50 years, and has only really been under major threat once in the last century is used as proof that we don't really need an army/military like the one we have now.
This, coupled with 'our' history of military aggression, is suggestive of the fact that the real reason we have a military like this is so our rulers can maintain their position as an aggressive world 'player', and not to actually defend our country/community after all.

 

[ddraig]

more nice free propaganda for harvesting youth!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7961897.stm

so who thinks this young lad 'Ashley' is old enough to be running around with guns and being groomed to kill people?

all a bit touchy feely this article, it can get your fat kids fit AND keep them out of trouble! magic cures all round

Sgt Griffiths, a member of the 2nd Battalion the Royal Welsh, has been working at the college since October 2007 and said he felt the courses were "invaluable" - both for the students and the armed forces themselves.

"It gives the kids a realistic insight into the army and lots of different regiments. So they are 100% sure of what they want to do."

He said a "whole range of pupils" enrolled on the course after leaving school - some with no qualifications and others with A-levels.

"We teach them basic skills and they can get qualifications and do things like first aid courses and lifesaving in the swimming pool. So they can go on to do other things - it's not a necessity to join the army after doing the course," he added.

For 17-year-old Ashley Lusted from Bagillt in Flintshire, who has just got into the army, said the MPC has helped him turn his life around.

He joined the Wrexham college over seven months ago as an overweight and troubled teenager.

"I was 16st and 4lbs when I joined and I've now lost four stone. I've become a bit of a fitness fanatic now - it's brilliant," he said.

"I've wanted to join the army since I was little kid and quite a lot of my family are in the armed forces.

"But I was always in trouble in school and getting in trouble with the police. I knew if I didn't sort myself out I wouldn't have had a career and would have ended up on the dole like a lot of people in my area

 

[derf]

So start a tread on the subject rather than trying to add politics to one about 4 sad deaths

 

[cesare]

So start a tread on the subject rather than trying to add politics to one about 4 sad deaths

He's got as much right to post his views on the subject, as you have to post yours on the thread about the murder of that kid in Greece.

 

[derf]

He's got as much right to post his views on the subject, as you have to post yours on the thread about the murder of that kid in Greece.

I'll be happy to argue with you on that thread.

 

[cesare]

I'll be happy to argue with you on that thread.

I've got no intention of arguing on that thread - I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of your position on this one.

 

[derf]

I've got no intention of arguing on that thread - I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of your position on this one.

Well shut the fuck up then.

 

[cesare]

Well shut the fuck up then.

That's very impolite on a thread about the death of 4 people at the hands of the military, derf

 

[llantwit]

So start a tread on the subject rather than trying to add politics to one about 4 sad deaths

He's not adding politics to anything - it's usually there already if you care to look for it.
So death canot have a politics of its own, eh Derf? Death is usually, if not always, political, imo. How about the deaths of soldiers in Iraq - should we keep schtum about them too, even though they shouldn't be there in the first place? Or deaths in a high-school shooting in the US which perhaps could have been avoided with more stringent political decisions around gun control, or deaths at the hands of Islamist terrorists which might well have been avoided were it not for the USA's funding of Islamism in Afghanistan against the evil ruskies, or if you want a few less highflutin' examples the deaths of people in road traffic accidents that might have been avoided if there were fewer cars on the road and we lived in a political climate more amenable to adequately funding public transport, or the deaths of shopkeepers stabbed by desperate junkies doing their tills over because they need money for a fix in a society that refuses to see drug dependence as a medical problem and only sees it as a crime?
Nah, better to keep a respectful silence. It'd be a pity to rock the boat at all and start thinking about the *reasons* people die, and what we can do to stop such tragic losses in the future.

 

[ddraig]

So start a tread on the subject rather than trying to add politics to one about 4 sad deaths

1 - it is totally relevant as it is again youths who are being recruited and groomed - they could be dead next.

2 - the 2 girls in the OP would be alive now if it was not for similar grooming by military

3 - i'll post here as and when i want thanks

is that clear enough for you?

 

[ddraig]

He's got as much right to post his views on the subject, as you have to post yours on the thread about the murder of that kid in Greece.

I've got no intention of arguing on that thread - I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of your position on this one.

nail on head!

Well shut the fuck up then.

not very nice is it!

 

[waterloowelshy]

1 - it is totally relevant as it is again youths who are being recruited and groomed - they could be dead next.

2 - the 2 girls in the OP would be alive now if it was not for similar grooming by military

3 - i'll post here as and when i want thanks

is that clear enough for you?

whats with the obsession with grooming? could the kids not just enjoy learning to fly? its always a consipracy with you.

 

[ddraig]

whats with the obsession with grooming? could the kids not just enjoy learning to fly? its always a consipracy with you.

would your sensitive ears/eyes prefer 'enthusiastically prepared' instead?

oh and either way it's not a conspiracy, it's rather blatant and there for all to see

 

[PAD1OH]

so, have you actually brought your views to any of the families of dead soldiers?

 

[ddraig]

why would i do that and upset them further?

do you disagree with my point(s)?

 

[PAD1OH]

i'm anti-war and anti-military aggression but I don't think we made the leaps from the days of conscription by making politics out of accidental deaths.

you're "point" isn't that radical at all but you just need to find constructive ways to communicate it and to actually do something about it.

 

[ddraig]

i'm anti-war and anti-military aggression but I don't think we made the leaps from the days of conscription by making politics out of accidental deaths.

you're "point" isn't that radical at all but you just need to find constructive ways to communicate it and to actually do something about it.

you gonna teach me then boss?

 

[llantwit]

i'm anti-war and anti-military aggression but I don't think we made the leaps from the days of conscription by making politics out of accidental deaths.

you're "point" isn't that radical at all but you just need to find constructive ways to communicate it and to actually do something about it.

You saying the same as Derf?
That somehow these deaths weren't political? I don't understand that.

 

[PAD1OH]

That somehow these deaths weren't political? I don't understand that.

Sometimes it's easier to understand an issue and present a stronger position on it when you dissassociate it from your own personal dogma.

Everything *can* be political but that doesn't mean we have to make it so.

 

[llantwit]

You're making a fairly big assumption there, mate (re: dogma - dogma suggests rigid belief... I'm perfectly able to change my mind on stuff if provided with convincing reasons to). And in quite a patronising tone (I understand the issue quite well, thanks).
That aside, I disagree with your logic. You suggest that the event itself is apolitical until people make it so or not by talking about it in certain ways. That 'we' are making these deaths political somehow.
The way I see it most acts and events are political in that they take place within a social context. Or put slightly differently, most events and acts have causes which are inherently political.
I gave a load of examples to back this up in post #75 below. That's just a basic philosphical difference we seem to have.

 

[llantwit]

so, have you actually brought your views to any of the families of dead soldiers?

That would be a bit crass, wouldn't it? Don't understand why this would be a good idea.
But their deaths are a matter of public importance as well as private grief, and I don't think that the tragic fact that people died should stop us discussing the fact that these deaths may have been unneccessary, and fit into a wider political context that affects our communities in a very real and detrimental way.
Too often accusations of 'playing politics' are bandied around as a kind of 'discursive stopper' - like a trump card people can play to close down debate about impoartant issues they don't want discussed. I don't think this goes for you, btw (I think you're arguing we shouldn't be making our points in a certain way, not that we shouldn't be making them at all) but it does to that dick Derf.

 

[waterloowelshy]

That would be a bit crass, wouldn't it? Don't understand why this would be a good idea.
But their deaths are a matter of public importance as well as private grief, and I don't think that the tragic fact that people died should stop us discussing the fact that these deaths may have been unneccessary, and fit into a wider political context that affects our communities in a very real and detrimental way.
Too often accusations of 'playing politics' are bandied around as a kind of 'discursive stopper' - like a trump card people can play to close down debate about impoartant issues they don't want discussed. I don't think this goes for you, btw (I think you're arguing we shouldn't be making our points in a certain way, not that we shouldn't be making them at all) but it does to that dick Derf.

How would it be crass? put your money where your mouth is and make your point properly or dont make it at all. either you believe whole heartedly in your point of view or you dont. i bet the dead childrens parents will be able to sleep much better after they have it explained to them that their deaths were a result of military grooming!

 

[waterloowelshy]

would your sensitive ears/eyes prefer 'enthusiastically prepared' instead?

oh and either way it's not a conspiracy, it's rather blatant and there for all to see

i dont mind what you call it. Its clear you like to refer to it as grooming though, so carry on. It makes your argument sound even sillier! tin hats at the ready!

 

[PAD1OH]

And in quite a patronising tone (I understand the issue quite well, thanks).

sorry, didn't mean to be patronising. no point in taking this further because we fundamentally agree on the issue just not the means/place/context of discussing it.