If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
How do you work that one out?
You made an assumption that I thought that was all soldiers did. You had no evidence on which to base that. In fact, if you see my question about what was the use of some wars, you could maybe gather from that that I think the British Army being in the Balkans or possibly the Falklands may have had some value. You'll also be able to work out that maybe I question the value of the British Army being in Iraq or Afghanistan. I may also have issues with the NI conflict.
Most fucking countries in the the West manage to get normal-priced oil and other commodities without having to invade sovereign nations illegally and unleashing hell upon others, thank you very much.
Without wishing to be cynical could that be because others do it for them?
You say that you aren't interested in whether Harrods ban soldiers because they are no more or less important than anyone else. Which group are more or less important than anyone else?
I appreciate that you do not wish anybody to attribute statements to you that you haven't made, but as I said I didn't make that assumption, as I think is fairly obvious to anybody from my post. At the same time there is some evidence that that was your view: your question "what soldiers do soldiers do for us", a question to which I provided five services that they perform, and your comment about the conflict in Northern Ireland.
No one is more or less important than anyone else.
Nonsense. You assumed that I "probably" held a certain view, when in fact I haven't fully stated my view.
Yes, a post which I have yet to comment on.
Yes. What about it? Know anything about the history of Ireland?
Yes, as I said I didn't think you would do - my point was that most people in this country (and Harrods) depend on soldiers risking their lives for our geopolitical and economic interests. And to be honest, it doesn't seem that they care that much having voted in the government who implemented an illegal war for a third term - or perhaps they actively approved of it.
But they depend on western military and political hegemony for this privilege. At any rate this isn't the point. The people of the UK and America want and expect cheap oil, which depends on military subjugation of other territories. In which case they ought to be thankful to those who are willing to give their lives in this military subjugation.
Yes, just as I assume that a die will probably not result in a six when it is rolled. Of course its perfectly possible that it will.
A certain amount, yes. I wouldn't consider myself an expert.
Eh?
Do you realise that the British Army have a history of oppression in Ireland?
I said that it probably applied to you because the comments you made that I had read suggested that: I did not say it certainly or absolutely absolutely applied to you. Clearly it doesn't - I rolled a six.
Yes.
You've lost me.
Oh, good.
1798 hardly had much relevance to 1969 does it though? The question do you realise that the IRA have a history of murdering those who don't want a united Ireland? is a much better one given that's why Operation Banner went on so long.
I'm trying to explain to you the idea of probability, since you didn't seem to understand my original qualification.
I'm sorry, the reason I am confused is that I don't see the relevance of your question to this thread.
I see. You assumed I was playing dice when actually I was playing backgammon. You must have had a reason to factor me into your probabilty. I'm telling you that you're making a silly assumption. I'm well aware that the army has lots of functions.
You don't? Blimey. Ok then - someone posted NI as an example of what the army do for us. I questioned the wisdom of that, based on a little knowledge of the history of British imperialism and oppression in NI.
Yes.
You are saying that they should let them in, thus dishonouring those men yourself. Harrods should only make a decision which suits them, this isn't about respecting soldiers, this is about their freedom to stop anyone coming into their stores. They have done so, they are a private organisation so there is no argument here and nothing to debate really.
Okay, I agree with the signing up part, but please explain what you mean by this...
Absolutely agree - but then others should feel free to complain about Harrod's decision and to withdraw our custom (which is a moot point as I've never been anyway).
Private companies have a right to do what they want within the law. But that doesn't mean that customers cannot complain. Its no different from people who boycott Marks and Sparks because they trade with Israel or people boycotting Nestle due complaints about how they sell baby milk.
Ditto, but not because of the soldiers aspect, but because I don't want to line the owner's pockets.
Too expensive, don't like the phoney pharoh and in my case the uniform adds another reason (not just soldiers - though that's a major one, but anyone in uniform whether thats a peeler popping in whilst walking past to have a quick look what to see what to get for his kid's birthday or an ambulance driver popping into to get a sandwich on their lunch break).
I've never understood that. You can find produce in any supermarket, technology in most computers and drugs in any hospital that's from Israel. Picking on M&S I suspect has more to do with the store being founded by a Jewish Pole. I know anti-Israeli protestors who sometimes protest outside M&S on Oxford Street have evoked some unpleasant memories in some Holocaust survivors who were around when protestors previously protested outside Jewish shops. Nasty stuff.
I don't boycott it myself, but people have a freedom to do so, just as M&S has the right to buy stuff from where it likes.
Rubbish. People everwhere hopes (not 'expects') for cheap oil. But you don't see any other country on earth invading other nations and bombing them to fuck to achieve it.
Why, some countries even go to the extraordinary and indeed revolutionary concept of entering amicable trading agreements with the suppliers of fossil fuels.
An alien concept to some, no doubt.
And if you think anyone should be thankful to soldiers for breaking international law and taking part in an abhorrent and morally repugnant war you've got another thought coming. Feel sorry for them, sure. But nothing to be thankful for in Iraq.
I'd be thankful if there had been a mass mutiny, from the foot soldiers to the high ranking officers, in which they told Blair and Bush to go fuck themselves instead.
So no cheap oil for France, then. They better start budding up to Chavez