| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Sal[Au]pian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 01/24/2009 : 07:32:59
|
In practice, I really doubt that the decision to invade had much to do with Bush's flaws other than that he did what he was told. And I do expect that most Republican presidents would have done the same. This doesn't make the scenario any better, just that it's different wrongs.
I think that Blair probably drove the decision more individually, despite the fact that a prime minister is supposed to be less autocratic, so in a way he is worse, although he was a lot more use otherwise. It'll be interesting to see how he is viewed in twenty years and whether he regrets it.
I'd never thought about this before but have you noticed that WMDs could not be used as a serious term now? It just gives the impression of imaginary. |
 |
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/24/2009 : 07:34:59
|
| Oh, but while I disagree with the troops being there, let's not call them mercenaries. |
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/24/2009 : 07:55:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Oh, but while I disagree with the troops being there, let's not call them mercenaries.
I'm talking about mercenaries (soldiers who work for the organisation paying them a.k.a. 'private security contractors'). I'm not talking about British soldiers sent there by the British government.
It makes sense to me that 'private security contractors' would be more knowledgeable about the internal dynamics of the conflict zone, as they work for themselves and are 'in charge' (and everything I've read confirms this). Not to mention their lives are in even greater danger if they misundertand the threats. By comparison government soldiers do what they're told and are fed what they 'need to know' which is commonly heavily filtered if not outright lies. |
Edited by - Sean on 01/24/2009 08:00:27 |
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/24/2009 : 08:00:23
|
| Oh, fair enough. I'd never thought of them as mercenaries either but I guess that can indeed be argued. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/24/2009 : 08:02:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Oh, fair enough. I'd never thought of them as mercenaries either but I guess that can indeed be argued.
I edited my above post. 'Mercenary' isn't necessarily a negative term, it simply implies that the soldier works for material reward. A mercenary could do good things or bad things depending on what they do and who they work for. |
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/24/2009 : 09:04:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Oh, fair enough. I'd never thought of them as mercenaries either but I guess that can indeed be argued.
I edited my above post. 'Mercenary' isn't necessarily a negative term, it simply implies that the soldier works for material reward. A mercenary could do good things or bad things depending on what they do and who they work for.
Sure, it isn't by (original) definition negative, but it has well established negative connotations that cannot be disregarded. Also (for that reason, presumably), the French Foreign Legion and the Gurkhas are officially not mercenaries, even though they are in it for the money. |
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/24/2009 : 09:06:24
|
| What I meant about not thinking of the security personnel as mercenaries was that they don't do outright fighting. However, I am sure they undertake some operations that are close enough. |
|
|
|
BiggerBoat 
"Pass me the harpoon"
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/24/2009 : 10:58:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
What I meant about not thinking of the security personnel as mercenaries was that they don't do outright fighting. However, I am sure they undertake some operations that are close enough.
I'm not sure what you've been reading, but they probably do more fighting than most of the 'soldiers'. They're there to protect people who are major targets, and they protect by killing those who intend to kill their clients before they succeed.
And yes, I agree that 'mercenary' does generally have negative connotations in it's common usage, likewise 'security contractor' or simply 'contractor' are euphemisms, so it works both ways. |
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/24/2009 : 11:10:17
|
| I've already acknowledged that they do equivalent levels of actions. The things you describe are not fighting. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/24/2009 : 20:02:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I've already acknowledged that they do equivalent levels of actions. The things you describe are not fighting.
Shooting people who are trying to kill someone you're protecting isn't fighting? Offensive fighting or defensive fighting is still fighting. |
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/24/2009 : 20:13:46
|
| Not outright fighting in the combat sense that I was obviously talking about (or really in any sense), but if you want to keep going on about it, please go ahead. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/24/2009 : 21:07:39
|
No, I'll leave it there thanks.  |
|
|
|
MguyX
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 01/24/2009 : 21:31:53
|
| Hey you two: stop fighting. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/24/2009 : 21:54:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
Hey you two: stop fighting.
It can't be fighting, I don't have an RPG...  |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
RIP - The George W. Bush Era
