Obama sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan but has not yet spoken to Karzai

[laptop]

You seem mighty hung up on one little word!

The only people who ever say "we" about the prosecution of a war are:

1. Those paid to propagandise for said war;
2. Those too fucking lazy to think about (1), therfore the target audience for said propaganda.

Please tick one.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

This only makes sense if "al-Qu'ida" is a worldwide organisation with command responsibility over British murderers. If it's a loose coalition, united more by ideology than organisation, then the "them" in Britain are going to carry on regardless.

As you say, the place is going to end up a mess, because the coalition's objectives are hopelessly muddled.

In his last email, my mate calls them Terry. I don't know why I found it amusing, but I did.

 

[Azrael]

The only people who ever say "we" about the prosecution of a war are:

1. Those paid to propagandise for said war;
2. Those too fucking lazy to think about (1), therfore the target audience for said propaganda.

Please tick one.

Regardless of numbers, the same argument pertains to the involvement of both Britain and American in Afgahnistan: it's not in our national interest. In this context "we" is a perfectly vaild word.

So what’s with the personal abuse?

 

[dylanredefined]

we do something to keep poppy out of the ilegal trade wether thats a morphine factory in kabul or just buy it an burn it dont care .Thats the locals on side problem solved .
Afgan proverb "you cant buy afgans you can only rent them"


No idea british army view apart from surving tour and "getting some"
dont seem to have a clue .We have a small army out there its costing billions
and acheving little .Either flood the place with troops or pull out .

 

[laptop]

So what’s with the personal abuse?

I don't know you.

I do know what the use of "we" signifies in connection with the prosecution of a war. See above.

I think you would find, were you to think, that there are no other options. You certainly didn't demonstrate the existence of one in your failed attempts to respond to butchers' questions.

 

[Azrael]

I don't know you.

I do know what the use of "we" signifies in connection with the prosecution of a war. See above.

I think you would find, were you to think, that there are no other options. You certainly didn't demonstrate the existence of one in your failed attempts to respond to butchers' questions.

In the post where I used the dreaded pronoun, I said Afgahnistan was worse than Vietnam, and questioned what purpose there was in staying there. You don't need to know me to realise that I'm not banging the drum for the war: reading the post should have done the job nicely.

You haven't shown that there are "no other options", since I just demonstrated one! The adoption of a word by pro-war types doesn't ban everyone else from using it.

Just to avoid any further confusion on your part: Britain should never have participated in the invasion of Afghanistan, the British Army has no business remaining there, and it should be withdrawn as soon as possible.

 

[laptop]

Just to avoid any further confusion on your part: Britain should never have participated in the invasion of Afghanistan, the British Army has no business remaining there, and it should be withdrawn as soon as possible.

So "you" are not part of the "we"?

Who the fuck is the "we" of which you speak, then? The two-and-a-halfth person plural?

 

[EddyBlack]

Alright, Azrael, don't say 'we' if you are against, even if its your country, 'we' is 'we' and therefore includes you if you say it. And given your opinions its clear that you didn't mean that. In fact, it is not good to do so and you shouldn't feel like you have to say that if you are against this. I think that is what Butchers was talking about, which I think was right.

 

[Azrael]

So "you" are not part of the "we"?

Who the fuck is the "we" of which you speak, then? The two-and-a-halfth person plural?

Fun as it is, I assume this sweary digression into grammatical criticism means you're dropping your claim that the only people who can refer to involvement in the Afgahn war in an inclusive manner are its supporters or those "fucking lazy to think about [it]".

Fair enough.

 

[laptop]

I thought briefly about widening it to "too lazy or too drunk" but decided that not thinking when you're drunk is lazy too.


"Inclusiveness" in the context of "the war we are fighting" is precisely the tool of the nationalist propagandist.

 

[EddyBlack]

Fun as it is, I assume this sweary digression into grammatical criticism means you're dropping your claim that the only people who can refer to involvement in the Afgahn war in an inclusive manner are its supporters or those "fucking lazy to think about [it]".

Fair enough.

FFS

 

[Azrael]

Alright, Azrael, don't say 'we' if you are against, even if its your country, 'we' is 'we' and therefore includes you if you say it. And given your opinions its clear that you didn't mean that. In fact, it is not good to do so and you shouldn't feel like you have to say that if you are against this. I think that is what Butchers was talking about, which I think was right.

I'm a British citizen, and my country is involved in the Afghan conflict, so I said "we", as a neutral, descriptive term. I would have thought the tone of the post made it abundantly clear where the drift of my opinions lay: warmongers don't question what useful purpose there is in staying in X war, as a rule.

Talk about an unexpected point of contention!

 

[EddyBlack]

I'm a British citizen, and my country is involved in the Afghan conflict, so I said "we", as a neutral, descriptive term. I would have thought the tone of the post made it abundantly clear where the drift of my opinions lay: warmongers don't question what useful purpose there is in staying in X war, as a rule.

Talk about an unexpected point of contention!

Yeah like I said, you needed correcting. You are going to go on like you have been wronged now? Do us a favour.

 

[Azrael]

"Inclusiveness" in the context of "the war we are fighting" is precisely the tool of the nationalist propagandist.

That's a meaning you've chosen to impose. The alternative -- that "we" referred to a nation -- clearly didn't occur to you, but that's not my problem.

I'm still trying to work out how you read that post and thought "aha, I spy a warmonger!", and I'm failing, but maybe the drink is doing its dastardly work.

 

[Azrael]

Yeah like I said, you needed correcting. You are going to go on like you have been wronged now? Do us a favour.

Your assumptions need correcting, more like. Britain is involved in a war; I'm British; so I use an inclusive pronoun. I'd love not to have cause to use it, but there we go.

I stand uncorrected, but amused at the power of the almighty "we".

 

[EddyBlack]

Your assumptions need correcting, more like. Britain is involved in a war; I'm British; so I use an inclusive pronoun. I'd love not to have cause to use it, but there we go.

I stand uncorrected, but amused at the power of the almighty "we".

Boring and a bit silly aren't you. cheers!

 

[laptop]

Britain is involved in a war; I'm British; so I use an inclusive pronoun.

So you regard yourself as a part of what you say you stand opposed to?

Then you haven't thought.

Bored too now.

Clearly one that's not going to learn shit.

 

[Azrael]

Boring and a bit silly aren't you. cheers!

I'm not the one who's chosen bang on about a pronoun for the past page.

So you regard yourself as a part of what you say you stand opposed to?

I am a part of it, unwillingly, due to my citizenship. This unwilling participation lies behind my anger at this pointless foreign adventure. (Plus my sadness at the needless waste of British lives, and the needless deaths of Afghan civilians at British hands.)

I really wouldn't have thought this is a difficult or contentious point: what else were all those "Not in my name" banners if not an acknowledgement of a sense of involvement?

If you don't understand these feelings, then I agree, you have nothing to teach me.

 

[EddyBlack]

I'm not the one who's chosen bang on about a pronoun for the past page.

You are.

 

[Azrael]

I've defended myself from on a point I'd eagerly drop; there's a difference.

But then, there's a difference between willing and unwilling involvement. Guess these nuances are lost on some people. Ah well, can't be helped.

 

[EddyBlack]

So eager you are. Fuck off.

 

[Azrael]

First we get the tired "I can't admit I lost the argument, so I'll pretend it wasn't worth having" riff. Now we're down to foul-mouthed abuse.

Go sleep it off.

 

[EddyBlack]

You are clearly taking the piss. I had actually backed you up earlier. You have spoilt this thread deliberately.

 

[Azrael]

You said I didn't have to feel included in Britain's actions in Afghanistan. Speaking personally, I disagree. If you were interested in backing me, you'd respect my right to feel differently without name-calling and swearing.

I have not "spoilt this thread deliberately". Getting irritated and shouting "fuck off" is one thing, but that’s a downright nasty thing to say. Kindly take it back. I've done my best to explain my position amongst a good deal of bad temper and needless aggression.

 

[EddyBlack]

Nobody is interested. Can you see how that is more important?

 

[Azrael]

If they weren't interested, they wouldn't have pushed the point for a page, lost their temper, and started swearing. I’m not the one who brought this up. Don't try and turn this round. That's really low.

So, are you taking what you said back?

 

[EddyBlack]

Yes you win.

 

[Azrael]

All I'm interested in is having my POV accepted without people resorting to abuse and allegations that I've gone out to wreck someone's thread, which I would never do.

Nothing would please me more now than having this bizarre tangent end and the thread getting back to its original topic.

 

[Detroit City]

Nothing would please me more now than having this bizarre tangent end and the thread getting back to its original topic.

good luck with that

 

[_float_]

People don't forget you bombed their fucking relatives just because you build them a new dam and say howdy as you pass them in your hummer.

If it were that simple then there should be more anti-Taliban recruits than pro-Taliban recruits, since the Taliban et al are killing more civilians:

...More than 2,100 civilians were killed in Afghanistan in 2008, a 40 per cent rise from the previous year, the United Nations has said. It also cited partial figures saying that the Taliban and local warlords were responsible for 1,000 out of 1,800 civilian deaths up to the end of October, mainly due to suicide bombings and improvised explosive devices. Nearly 700 people were killed by international and Afghan forces in the same period, including 455 who died in air strikes, while the cause of the remaining 100 had yet to be determined, it said...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/04/2481821.htm