FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Britain should train a citizen army.
Britain should train a citizen army.
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
I think it’s a bad idea. You’d have a load of trigger happy arnie wannabes jumping on it thinking it’d be like call of duty  I think everyone should refuse, can’t go to war with no army can you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morning shag
I think it’s a bad idea. You’d have a load of trigger happy arnie wannabes jumping on it thinking it’d be like call of duty I think everyone should refuse, can’t go to war with no army can you "I love you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So I’m against it personally although due to my old age it’s unlikely to affect me. That said every both world wars were fought with a mobilised civilian army with 880+ casualties in WWI and 330k+ in WWI. By contract they are saying that the army is only 75k today. I’ve seen some great commentary on X And LBC from people discussing this especially people with dual citizenship and people of colour who are consistently remembered that they arent really British " I saw a great tweet essentially saying it’s ’where are you really from’ so keep the same energy init | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So I’m against it personally although due to my old age it’s unlikely to affect me. That said every both world wars were fought with a mobilised civilian army with 880+ casualties in WWI and 330k+ in WWI. By contract they are saying that the army is only 75k today. I’ve seen some great commentary on X And LBC from people discussing this especially people with dual citizenship and people of colour who are consistently remembered that they arent really British I saw a great tweet essentially saying it’s ’where are you really from’ so keep the same energy init" There have been some genuinely hilarious comments. To the point where I legitimately think that some people are in the wrong line of work 
Let’s just say a lot of St George’s crosses and Union Jacks have been removed from bios in the last 24 hours  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Pat Sanders is suggesting we train more people to be soldiers so that they can be called up if the Russians attack (as they might well do). " So make the military a more attractive place for people to take up as their vocation rather than threatening to conscript people who have no intention of ever going to war. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Russia has 2 million reservists in its army and 1.5 million regular soldiers. I think they also have many more who have completed some form of military service but do not have an immediate reserve liability. The UK has 73,000 regular soldiers and around 20,000 reservists in the army. Pat Sanders is suggesting we train more people to be soldiers so that they can be called up if the Russians attack (as they might well do). He is the foremost expert in defence and that is his advice to be certain we can protect our country. Unless we’ve got 40 years of defence experience and access to all the top secret intelligence and specialists that he has, we’ll probably need to accept that he is better placed to advise than the average swinger." I had friends whose dads were in the forces in the early eighties stationed in Germany, before the wall came down. They said their average life expectancy should the Russians invade was 20-30 minutes. Anyone who thinks an actual ground conflict in Europe on the scale of WW2 would ever happen is delusional. It would never get that far before it escalated to more serious weapons. Hence most European armies have been significantly downsized over the last two decades...... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Russia has 2 million reservists in its army and 1.5 million regular soldiers. I think they also have many more who have completed some form of military service but do not have an immediate reserve liability. The UK has 73,000 regular soldiers and around 20,000 reservists in the army. Pat Sanders is suggesting we train more people to be soldiers so that they can be called up if the Russians attack (as they might well do). He is the foremost expert in defence and that is his advice to be certain we can protect our country. Unless we’ve got 40 years of defence experience and access to all the top secret intelligence and specialists that he has, we’ll probably need to accept that he is better placed to advise than the average swinger." We also have to accept that this call of “we need a better military” is always drummed up to increase support for a bigger military budget. That’s his job, get a bigger military budget, so you can’t take his word as if it’s from a completely unbiased position. It’s also disingenuous to compare Russia’s numbers to the UK. That’s why nato exists. It’s a combined military of 31 states with an estimated 3.5 million active personnel The fact that Russia is struggling with Ukraine with only the help of nato, I don’t think we should worry about any real threat from a nation that’s being bankrupted by sanctions and losing a war | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Russia has 2 million reservists in its army and 1.5 million regular soldiers. I think they also have many more who have completed some form of military service but do not have an immediate reserve liability. The UK has 73,000 regular soldiers and around 20,000 reservists in the army. Pat Sanders is suggesting we train more people to be soldiers so that they can be called up if the Russians attack (as they might well do). He is the foremost expert in defence and that is his advice to be certain we can protect our country. Unless we’ve got 40 years of defence experience and access to all the top secret intelligence and specialists that he has, we’ll probably need to accept that he is better placed to advise than the average swinger. I had friends whose dads were in the forces in the early eighties stationed in Germany, before the wall came down. They said their average life expectancy should the Russians invade was 20-30 minutes. Anyone who thinks an actual ground conflict in Europe on the scale of WW2 would ever happen is delusional. It would never get that far before it escalated to more serious weapons. Hence most European armies have been significantly downsized over the last two decades......" Indeed, the next war will be fought by computers, satellites and drones. You can cripple an army by destroying their access to satellites. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Russia has 2 million reservists in its army and 1.5 million regular soldiers. I think they also have many more who have completed some form of military service but do not have an immediate reserve liability. The UK has 73,000 regular soldiers and around 20,000 reservists in the army. Pat Sanders is suggesting we train more people to be soldiers so that they can be called up if the Russians attack (as they might well do). He is the foremost expert in defence and that is his advice to be certain we can protect our country. Unless we’ve got 40 years of defence experience and access to all the top secret intelligence and specialists that he has, we’ll probably need to accept that he is better placed to advise than the average swinger. I had friends whose dads were in the forces in the early eighties stationed in Germany, before the wall came down. They said their average life expectancy should the Russians invade was 20-30 minutes. Anyone who thinks an actual ground conflict in Europe on the scale of WW2 would ever happen is delusional. It would never get that far before it escalated to more serious weapons. Hence most European armies have been significantly downsized over the last two decades...... Indeed, the next war will be fought by computers, satellites and drones. You can cripple an army by destroying their access to satellites." And their access to Pornhub and a pub on a Saturday night. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morning shag
I think it’s a bad idea. You’d have a load of trigger happy arnie wannabes jumping on it thinking it’d be like call of duty I think everyone should refuse, can’t go to war with no army can you "Morning chicken and yes, you are right there, one have to be trigger happy too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was reading the news and I was a bit surprised when I read about how apparently britain should train a " citizen army" this was for the future, said the head army eneral sir patrick sanders. He added that this is because of the ongoinh threat of increased war from russia and it is not the first time that he have warned about it. What is your view about it? Is it a good idea? I think that it could be good with general training for it as it could help the army if a war war starter, how would the selection work and should women also do it? "I suspect this was a "nudge" to government regarding funding for the armed services than a genuine suggestion. Having said that, I've not read his article to look at the phraseology he used. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a terrible idea. Also, why would anyone want to fight just to keep the status quo in this country? If I were called up, I'd want a new domestic settlement in Britain, with a fairer and more equal country. " That is how they'd sell it I suspect Tina, with absolutely no intention of implementation | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Citizens army sounds a bit fash and it’s almost as if no one reads history books with the SA and all that Conscription isn’t exactly a brilliant idea either." What’s the SA? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Russia has 2 million reservists in its army and 1.5 million regular soldiers. I think they also have many more who have completed some form of military service but do not have an immediate reserve liability. The UK has 73,000 regular soldiers and around 20,000 reservists in the army. Pat Sanders is suggesting we train more people to be soldiers so that they can be called up if the Russians attack (as they might well do). He is the foremost expert in defence and that is his advice to be certain we can protect our country. Unless we’ve got 40 years of defence experience and access to all the top secret intelligence and specialists that he has, we’ll probably need to accept that he is better placed to advise than the average swinger." Pat Sanders has no experience of being killed in action. I don't think it's defence he's advocating | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Russia has 2 million reservists in its army and 1.5 million regular soldiers. I think they also have many more who have completed some form of military service but do not have an immediate reserve liability. The UK has 73,000 regular soldiers and around 20,000 reservists in the army. Pat Sanders is suggesting we train more people to be soldiers so that they can be called up if the Russians attack (as they might well do). He is the foremost expert in defence and that is his advice to be certain we can protect our country. Unless we’ve got 40 years of defence experience and access to all the top secret intelligence and specialists that he has, we’ll probably need to accept that he is better placed to advise than the average swinger." Then perhaps what we need to do is make the military a more appealing career choice, rather force people into military service? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Russia has 2 million reservists in its army and 1.5 million regular soldiers. I think they also have many more who have completed some form of military service but do not have an immediate reserve liability. The UK has 73,000 regular soldiers and around 20,000 reservists in the army. Pat Sanders is suggesting we train more people to be soldiers so that they can be called up if the Russians attack (as they might well do). He is the foremost expert in defence and that is his advice to be certain we can protect our country. Unless we’ve got 40 years of defence experience and access to all the top secret intelligence and specialists that he has, we’ll probably need to accept that he is better placed to advise than the average swinger. Pat Sanders has no experience of being killed in action. I don't think it's defence he's advocating" He also has no experience of living under Vladimir Putin. I think he’d rather we didn’t either. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Citizens army sounds a bit fash and it’s almost as if no one reads history books with the SA and all that Conscription isn’t exactly a brilliant idea either. What’s the SA?" Sturmabteilung - the Storm Division/Troopers, paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Russia has 2 million reservists in its army and 1.5 million regular soldiers. I think they also have many more who have completed some form of military service but do not have an immediate reserve liability. The UK has 73,000 regular soldiers and around 20,000 reservists in the army. Pat Sanders is suggesting we train more people to be soldiers so that they can be called up if the Russians attack (as they might well do). He is the foremost expert in defence and that is his advice to be certain we can protect our country. Unless we’ve got 40 years of defence experience and access to all the top secret intelligence and specialists that he has, we’ll probably need to accept that he is better placed to advise than the average swinger. Then perhaps what we need to do is make the military a more appealing career choice, rather force people into military service?" We defo need to do that. Conscription is morally tricky because it’s where the rights of the individual are trampled on, but then if we don’t conscript we run the risk of having to live under a Russian regime and having no rights at all. Large scale war in Europe is as inconceivable now as it was in 1939. There really aren’t any easy choices. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Citizens army sounds a bit fash and it’s almost as if no one reads history books with the SA and all that Conscription isn’t exactly a brilliant idea either. What’s the SA? Sturmabteilung - the Storm Division/Troopers, paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party." The term “citizen army” means an army of civilians who’ve been conscripted for the duration of a conflict. Ie what many of our grandparents and great grandparents did in WW1 and WW2. As opposed to the professional army who are soldiers in war and peace. The SA were indeed a paramilitary group, not a citizen army. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Russia has 2 million reservists in its army and 1.5 million regular soldiers. I think they also have many more who have completed some form of military service but do not have an immediate reserve liability. The UK has 73,000 regular soldiers and around 20,000 reservists in the army. Pat Sanders is suggesting we train more people to be soldiers so that they can be called up if the Russians attack (as they might well do). He is the foremost expert in defence and that is his advice to be certain we can protect our country. Unless we’ve got 40 years of defence experience and access to all the top secret intelligence and specialists that he has, we’ll probably need to accept that he is better placed to advise than the average swinger. Then perhaps what we need to do is make the military a more appealing career choice, rather force people into military service? We defo need to do that. Conscription is morally tricky because it’s where the rights of the individual are trampled on, but then if we don’t conscript we run the risk of having to live under a Russian regime and having no rights at all. Large scale war in Europe is as inconceivable now as it was in 1939. There really aren’t any easy choices." think you are vastly overplaying the potential for large scale war in Europe. Nuclear weapons changed the equation on that one. It is useful for the military, which is yet another public service that has been massively underfunded by a government which only serves the rich, to stoke a bit of fear in the run up to budget season. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The SA were indeed a paramilitary group, not a citizen army." Strange that you asked what they were up thread. It’s still all a bit fash and the UKs lurch to the right continues. Better to keep arming Ukraine than get into mythical scenarios from retired generals. The threat from Russia decreases if Putin is deposed and there’s free and fair elections, I’m sure we’d all rather see some justice for the illegal occupations from 2014 onward. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here’s a thought for you all. In WW1 only 2% of soldiers on both side actually shot to kill. This is how hard most people find it to kill another human being, the army was mainly made up of volunteers and conscripts (a citizen army so to speak). To empathise there was a rifle or should I say musket found at I think Gettysburg but one of the big battles of the US civil war. It had 10 unified shots in it. This means the soldier who it belonged to stood in line facing the enemy. He loaded the weapon 10 times but never pulled the trigger. Not a coward just a man who could not kill his fellow man. Soldiers of modern armies train and train so the actual act of killing (shooting the enemy) is done without thinking. That comes after PTSD. Look at the modern wars Falklands, Desert Storm, etc the conscript army even though vastly superior in numbers always losses out to the smaller professional army. A citizen army is a bad idea, it’s like a welder going to try his hand at brain surgery. " Add to this that only 15-20% of soldiers in WW2 fired their weapon at all, with those who did, as elucidated above, almost all firing above the heads of their enemies. Killing is not natural, people have to be trained to kill, and I really don’t think having a country full of trained killers is the best way to having a safe society. And if somebody is not trained to kill, then what’s the point in them being given a gun in the first place? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The SA were indeed a paramilitary group, not a citizen army. Strange that you asked what they were up thread. It’s still all a bit fash and the UKs lurch to the right continues. Better to keep arming Ukraine than get into mythical scenarios from retired generals. The threat from Russia decreases if Putin is deposed and there’s free and fair elections, I’m sure we’d all rather see some justice for the illegal occupations from 2014 onward." I asked because it didn’t make any sense to suggest the nazi SA was a citizen army. I wondered if there was something else being eluded to like “South Africa” for example. The term citizen army isn’t “fash” it has been used for many decades. If Russia becomes a different country then clearly the threat dissipates. Is that hope or an expectation? I’m sure we will keep arming Ukraine but we are out of critical ammunition natures and we don’t have many weapons left to give. The situation isn’t mythical and Pat Sanders isn’t retired, he’s ghe Chief of the General Staff. Ie the UK’s top serving soldier. The UK’s (and the USA’s and Europe’s) lurch to the right is extremely sad and ironically aligns us ideologically with Russian and Nazi ideas. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it’s selfish to hide behind pacifism and expect others to perish so you can have your liberty. " I support fully the need for a well paid and highly trained military, and respect those who serve willingly. I don’t support conscripting those who have no desire to fight (or further, are morally aghast at the thought of war). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Start by recruiting all the 'new Britons' filling our hotels." They would suddenly remember that they’ll miss their children’s next birthday and have to go home! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here’s a thought for you all. In WW1 only 2% of soldiers on both side actually shot to kill. This is how hard most people find it to kill another human being, the army was mainly made up of volunteers and conscripts (a citizen army so to speak). To empathise there was a rifle or should I say musket found at I think Gettysburg but one of the big battles of the US civil war. It had 10 unified shots in it. This means the soldier who it belonged to stood in line facing the enemy. He loaded the weapon 10 times but never pulled the trigger. Not a coward just a man who could not kill his fellow man. Soldiers of modern armies train and train so the actual act of killing (shooting the enemy) is done without thinking. That comes after PTSD. Look at the modern wars Falklands, Desert Storm, etc the conscript army even though vastly superior in numbers always losses out to the smaller professional army. A citizen army is a bad idea, it’s like a welder going to try his hand at brain surgery. Add to this that only 15-20% of soldiers in WW2 fired their weapon at all, with those who did, as elucidated above, almost all firing above the heads of their enemies. Killing is not natural, people have to be trained to kill, and I really don’t think having a country full of trained killers is the best way to having a safe society. And if somebody is not trained to kill, then what’s the point in them being given a gun in the first place?" Sadly killing is very natural to humans. There are cave paintings of human conflict. It is said to be the second oldest profession. I think the general’s suggestion is that we do train people to use firearms, so that they have a level of training when we do give them a weapon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it’s selfish to hide behind pacifism and expect others to perish so you can have your liberty. I support fully the need for a well paid and highly trained military, and respect those who serve willingly. I don’t support conscripting those who have no desire to fight (or further, are morally aghast at the thought of war). " Sanders has said he’s opposed to conscription, but wanting folk to be ‘prepared’…. Which is basically training to use a weapon and basic field craft and tactics. Bloody good idea  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it’s selfish to hide behind pacifism and expect others to perish so you can have your liberty. I support fully the need for a well paid and highly trained military, and respect those who serve willingly. I don’t support conscripting those who have no desire to fight (or further, are morally aghast at the thought of war). Sanders has said he’s opposed to conscription, but wanting folk to be ‘prepared’…. Which is basically training to use a weapon and basic field craft and tactics. Bloody good idea "For those willing to learn, sure. I have no interest in learning to use a weapon, since I’m not going to kill anyone with it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Start by recruiting all the 'new Britons' filling our hotels." Sounds a wee bit “ist” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it’s selfish to hide behind pacifism and expect others to perish so you can have your liberty. I support fully the need for a well paid and highly trained military, and respect those who serve willingly. I don’t support conscripting those who have no desire to fight (or further, are morally aghast at the thought of war). Sanders has said he’s opposed to conscription, but wanting folk to be ‘prepared’…. Which is basically training to use a weapon and basic field craft and tactics. Bloody good idea
For those willing to learn, sure.
I have no interest in learning to use a weapon, since I’m not going to kill anyone with it."So think of this, as far fetched as it is. Just say the ruskies manage to get all the way through Europe and are filling up boats ready to cross the North Sea to invade the U.K….. bear in mind that most our forces may have perished in the mainland battle in Europe. News alert is that they will land on U.K. soil in a day or so, what you going to do and where are you going to hide? You have a family to protect and keep safe, so do all your friends and relatives. The government have asked for as many volunteers as possible to go to a local armoury and take a weapon. Would you not step up to the plate? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it’s selfish to hide behind pacifism and expect others to perish so you can have your liberty. I support fully the need for a well paid and highly trained military, and respect those who serve willingly. I don’t support conscripting those who have no desire to fight (or further, are morally aghast at the thought of war). Sanders has said he’s opposed to conscription, but wanting folk to be ‘prepared’…. Which is basically training to use a weapon and basic field craft and tactics. Bloody good idea
For those willing to learn, sure.
I have no interest in learning to use a weapon, since I’m not going to kill anyone with it.
So think of this, as far fetched as it is. Just say the ruskies manage to get all the way through Europe and are filling up boats ready to cross the North Sea to invade the U.K….. bear in mind that most our forces may have perished in the mainland battle in Europe. News alert is that they will land on U.K. soil in a day or so, what you going to do and where are you going to hide? You have a family to protect and keep safe, so do all your friends and relatives. The government have asked for as many volunteers as possible to go to a local armoury and take a weapon. Would you not step up to the plate?"At that point he’s probably too late to learn how to be a soldier. He’d really only be useful for cannon fodder or manual labour at that stage. Maybe he could join the Wolverines? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it’s selfish to hide behind pacifism and expect others to perish so you can have your liberty. I support fully the need for a well paid and highly trained military, and respect those who serve willingly. I don’t support conscripting those who have no desire to fight (or further, are morally aghast at the thought of war). Sanders has said he’s opposed to conscription, but wanting folk to be ‘prepared’…. Which is basically training to use a weapon and basic field craft and tactics. Bloody good idea
For those willing to learn, sure.
I have no interest in learning to use a weapon, since I’m not going to kill anyone with it.
So think of this, as far fetched as it is. Just say the ruskies manage to get all the way through Europe and are filling up boats ready to cross the North Sea to invade the U.K….. bear in mind that most our forces may have perished in the mainland battle in Europe. News alert is that they will land on U.K. soil in a day or so, what you going to do and where are you going to hide? You have a family to protect and keep safe, so do all your friends and relatives. The government have asked for as many volunteers as possible to go to a local armoury and take a weapon. Would you not step up to the plate?"By that point I would have already taken my family to safety elsewhere. (I’m very fortunate to have that option). I will neither die, nor kill, on the whim of a politician. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it’s selfish to hide behind pacifism and expect others to perish so you can have your liberty. I support fully the need for a well paid and highly trained military, and respect those who serve willingly. I don’t support conscripting those who have no desire to fight (or further, are morally aghast at the thought of war). Sanders has said he’s opposed to conscription, but wanting folk to be ‘prepared’…. Which is basically training to use a weapon and basic field craft and tactics. Bloody good idea
For those willing to learn, sure.
I have no interest in learning to use a weapon, since I’m not going to kill anyone with it.
So think of this, as far fetched as it is. Just say the ruskies manage to get all the way through Europe and are filling up boats ready to cross the North Sea to invade the U.K….. bear in mind that most our forces may have perished in the mainland battle in Europe. News alert is that they will land on U.K. soil in a day or so, what you going to do and where are you going to hide? You have a family to protect and keep safe, so do all your friends and relatives. The government have asked for as many volunteers as possible to go to a local armoury and take a weapon. Would you not step up to the plate?
By that point I would have already taken my family to safety elsewhere. (I’m very fortunate to have that option). I will neither die, nor kill, on the whim of a politician.
"That would make you an asylum seeker. Not sure if Mr_Reus will be your friend | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it’s selfish to hide behind pacifism and expect others to perish so you can have your liberty. I support fully the need for a well paid and highly trained military, and respect those who serve willingly. I don’t support conscripting those who have no desire to fight (or further, are morally aghast at the thought of war). Sanders has said he’s opposed to conscription, but wanting folk to be ‘prepared’…. Which is basically training to use a weapon and basic field craft and tactics. Bloody good idea
For those willing to learn, sure.
I have no interest in learning to use a weapon, since I’m not going to kill anyone with it.
So think of this, as far fetched as it is. Just say the ruskies manage to get all the way through Europe and are filling up boats ready to cross the North Sea to invade the U.K….. bear in mind that most our forces may have perished in the mainland battle in Europe. News alert is that they will land on U.K. soil in a day or so, what you going to do and where are you going to hide? You have a family to protect and keep safe, so do all your friends and relatives. The government have asked for as many volunteers as possible to go to a local armoury and take a weapon. Would you not step up to the plate?
By that point I would have already taken my family to safety elsewhere. (I’m very fortunate to have that option). I will neither die, nor kill, on the whim of a politician.
"You’re very fortunate then, as millions wouldn’t. Also it’s not at the whim of a politician at all, it’s pure grass root survival…..kill or be killed. Time to get back to neanderthal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it’s selfish to hide behind pacifism and expect others to perish so you can have your liberty. I support fully the need for a well paid and highly trained military, and respect those who serve willingly. I don’t support conscripting those who have no desire to fight (or further, are morally aghast at the thought of war). Sanders has said he’s opposed to conscription, but wanting folk to be ‘prepared’…. Which is basically training to use a weapon and basic field craft and tactics. Bloody good idea
For those willing to learn, sure.
I have no interest in learning to use a weapon, since I’m not going to kill anyone with it.
So think of this, as far fetched as it is. Just say the ruskies manage to get all the way through Europe and are filling up boats ready to cross the North Sea to invade the U.K….. bear in mind that most our forces may have perished in the mainland battle in Europe. News alert is that they will land on U.K. soil in a day or so, what you going to do and where are you going to hide? You have a family to protect and keep safe, so do all your friends and relatives. The government have asked for as many volunteers as possible to go to a local armoury and take a weapon. Would you not step up to the plate?
By that point I would have already taken my family to safety elsewhere. (I’m very fortunate to have that option). I will neither die, nor kill, on the whim of a politician.
That would make you an asylum seeker. Not sure if Mr_Reus will be your friend " I think we should keep those rubber dinghies seized in the English Channel | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it’s selfish to hide behind pacifism and expect others to perish so you can have your liberty. I support fully the need for a well paid and highly trained military, and respect those who serve willingly. I don’t support conscripting those who have no desire to fight (or further, are morally aghast at the thought of war). Sanders has said he’s opposed to conscription, but wanting folk to be ‘prepared’…. Which is basically training to use a weapon and basic field craft and tactics. Bloody good idea
For those willing to learn, sure.
I have no interest in learning to use a weapon, since I’m not going to kill anyone with it.
So think of this, as far fetched as it is. Just say the ruskies manage to get all the way through Europe and are filling up boats ready to cross the North Sea to invade the U.K….. bear in mind that most our forces may have perished in the mainland battle in Europe. News alert is that they will land on U.K. soil in a day or so, what you going to do and where are you going to hide? You have a family to protect and keep safe, so do all your friends and relatives. The government have asked for as many volunteers as possible to go to a local armoury and take a weapon. Would you not step up to the plate?
By that point I would have already taken my family to safety elsewhere. (I’m very fortunate to have that option). I will neither die, nor kill, on the whim of a politician.
You’re very fortunate then, as millions wouldn’t. Also it’s not at the whim of a politician at all, it’s pure grass root survival…..kill or be killed. Time to get back to neanderthal "War is always at the whim of politicians. Borders are political constructs. War *is* politics. And another thing about war? It always ends with politicians talking around a table. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it’s selfish to hide behind pacifism and expect others to perish so you can have your liberty. I support fully the need for a well paid and highly trained military, and respect those who serve willingly. I don’t support conscripting those who have no desire to fight (or further, are morally aghast at the thought of war). Sanders has said he’s opposed to conscription, but wanting folk to be ‘prepared’…. Which is basically training to use a weapon and basic field craft and tactics. Bloody good idea
For those willing to learn, sure.
I have no interest in learning to use a weapon, since I’m not going to kill anyone with it.
So think of this, as far fetched as it is. Just say the ruskies manage to get all the way through Europe and are filling up boats ready to cross the North Sea to invade the U.K….. bear in mind that most our forces may have perished in the mainland battle in Europe. News alert is that they will land on U.K. soil in a day or so, what you going to do and where are you going to hide? You have a family to protect and keep safe, so do all your friends and relatives. The government have asked for as many volunteers as possible to go to a local armoury and take a weapon. Would you not step up to the plate?
By that point I would have already taken my family to safety elsewhere. (I’m very fortunate to have that option). I will neither die, nor kill, on the whim of a politician.
You’re very fortunate then, as millions wouldn’t. Also it’s not at the whim of a politician at all, it’s pure grass root survival…..kill or be killed. Time to get back to neanderthal
War is always at the whim of politicians. Borders are political constructs. War *is* politics.
And another thing about war? It always ends with politicians talking around a table. "I concur about the whim of politicians….. but saying it ends up talking around a table is silly. Really? It didn’t work for hitler, the gulf wars, Vietnam, falklands, Afghanistan etc. They either lost or someone pulled out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We could recruit all the street gangs, who are armed already. " Directing funds towards training them up to fight in a war rather than towards supporting the issues they suffer from and the organisations that already do the work would, tbf, be the most British government thing ever | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As someone who served for many years this is not the answer. What makes our armed forces unique and stronger is that everyone who has or is or will be in them is there voluntarily and by choice. That means they know and understand the risk and therefore give maximum attention to the training that is given. A “people’s army” in my opinion would not work in the same fashion. The main reason they talk of this is that continues governments have stripped the armed forces of personnel. The army itself by approximately a quarter in 10 years. Now there is a risk that we may need one they are offering people they made redundant to re join or a massing of the public. Whether you agree with the armed forces or not you cannot keep stripping things for a short term financial gain then ask the public to step in. What training would be delivered and to what standard or is it Dads Army again. Lastly I was always told that an army of under 100 thousand was no longer an army, it became a home force. In my time we have gone from 108 thousand to about 77 thousand and of that they reckon 20% are medically non deployable" Yes, you are right there, a peoples army cant be compared to the armed forces as yes, they are unique and stronger and with more experience as well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather flee the country than serve it in war Id even prefer to surrender to whoever is going to win. I’ve got a great trade that’ll make me valuable to whoever the winner is. I’m not dying in a foxhole by a remote controlled drone for some rich cunts that don’t give a fuck about me " Spilneless why not bugger off now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally think it’s a great idea and btw the way I’m ex forces, did the whole cadet thing too. The lefties have decimated society and turned folk into absolute pussies and cry babies. To experience firing a weapon and the damage it causes humbles a human being and teaches respect. Most of my family were naval and fought in WW2 and campaigns since. There is nothing wrong with learning survival, those skills will never disappear and come in useful. And no I don’t advocate war on any footing, but being prepared I do. Its to easy to sit in your comfy armchair thinking we’re a member of nato and other countries and our own military forces will defend us, but those brave service men and women have loved ones whom care for them. So it’s selfish to hide behind pacifism and expect others to perish so you can have your liberty. " Ex services also but the reduction in all branches of our armed forces in my time to the present isn't down to one political side which is the crux of the issue.. I'm off the mind that if (and pretty sure no one wants it to ever get to such a point) push does come to shove and the country is under direct threat that as has happened before that the reality of the situation will change opinions.. No one as you know fights for the flag, it's your mucka stood next to you and if it's your family and home that's at risk then as before people will do what's needed.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather flee the country than serve it in war Id even prefer to surrender to whoever is going to win. I’ve got a great trade that’ll make me valuable to whoever the winner is. I’m not dying in a foxhole by a remote controlled drone for some rich cunts that don’t give a fuck about me " Would you let someone take those tools of your trade it that applies or walk into your home and help themselves to what you've earned? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather flee the country than serve it in war Id even prefer to surrender to whoever is going to win. I’ve got a great trade that’ll make me valuable to whoever the winner is. I’m not dying in a foxhole by a remote controlled drone for some rich cunts that don’t give a fuck about me Spilneless why not bugger off now" Cos I’m fine as it is If you wanna go die in a foxhole for a bunch of rich cunts that created a system where you can’t afford a house, go right ahead It’s only those that know they won’t be in the foxhole pointing fingers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here’s a thought for you all. In WW1 only 2% of soldiers on both side actually shot to kill. This is how hard most people find it to kill another human being, the army was mainly made up of volunteers and conscripts (a citizen army so to speak). To empathise there was a rifle or should I say musket found at I think Gettysburg but one of the big battles of the US civil war. It had 10 unified shots in it. This means the soldier who it belonged to stood in line facing the enemy. He loaded the weapon 10 times but never pulled the trigger. Not a coward just a man who could not kill his fellow man. Soldiers of modern armies train and train so the actual act of killing (shooting the enemy) is done without thinking. That comes after PTSD. Look at the modern wars Falklands, Desert Storm, etc the conscript army even though vastly superior in numbers always losses out to the smaller professional army. A citizen army is a bad idea, it’s like a welder going to try his hand at brain surgery. Add to this that only 15-20% of soldiers in WW2 fired their weapon at all, with those who did, as elucidated above, almost all firing above the heads of their enemies. Killing is not natural, people have to be trained to kill, and I really don’t think having a country full of trained killers is the best way to having a safe society. And if somebody is not trained to kill, then what’s the point in them being given a gun in the first place? Sadly killing is very natural to humans. There are cave paintings of human conflict. It is said to be the second oldest profession. I think the general’s suggestion is that we do train people to use firearms, so that they have a level of training when we do give them a weapon. " The oldest paintings of human conflict discovered were in Northern Australia, and date to 10,000 years ago. They are thought to depict conflict between hunter gatherers over food. In the paleolithic era population density was so low that conflict over resource was very unlikely. The migration from Africa is widely believed to be an effort to avoid conflict in favour of discovering new resources. The first archaeological evidence of large scale violence coincides with an ecological disaster, and indicates a conflict over resources. Historical evidence shows that humans naturally attempt to avoid conflict, if they possibly can. More recent historical evidence shows that even when facing an enemy the vast majority of people will not shoot and even if they do, they will shoot over their heads. What’s the point of giving people guns if they won’t use them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Joe Public joining ukraines fight has triggered this, anyone can go over and join the fight. Essentially if we get targeted like they have, then yes inordinate sums of people would be drafted in to fight, maybe if they support the uk military and its reserves more, we would have a better stand against people who wish us harm." You've got that just a little bit wrong... AFU will only accept people with proven extensive military training and experience, and then only into designated units. Joe bloggs, whose experience is 'was in the cadets, and play COD regularly' is just a liability to anyone around him but is unlikely to even get past the border anyway. I have extensive experience in Ukraine, know a lot of military personnel over there and have all the relevant contacts and bits of paper but even I wouldn't be immediately accepted into their military. All that aside, if it came to the crunch and our soil was under threat, I definitely would take up arms to protect it and the people living here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather flee the country than serve it in war Id even prefer to surrender to whoever is going to win. I’ve got a great trade that’ll make me valuable to whoever the winner is. I’m not dying in a foxhole by a remote controlled drone for some rich cunts that don’t give a fuck about me Would you let someone take those tools of your trade it that applies or walk into your home and help themselves to what you've earned? " I’m more valuable using my trade to whoever the winner is. So forget the hypotheticals. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it’s selfish to hide behind pacifism and expect others to perish so you can have your liberty. I support fully the need for a well paid and highly trained military, and respect those who serve willingly. I don’t support conscripting those who have no desire to fight (or further, are morally aghast at the thought of war). Sanders has said he’s opposed to conscription, but wanting folk to be ‘prepared’…. Which is basically training to use a weapon and basic field craft and tactics. Bloody good idea
For those willing to learn, sure.
I have no interest in learning to use a weapon, since I’m not going to kill anyone with it.
So think of this, as far fetched as it is. Just say the ruskies manage to get all the way through Europe and are filling up boats ready to cross the North Sea to invade the U.K….. bear in mind that most our forces may have perished in the mainland battle in Europe. News alert is that they will land on U.K. soil in a day or so, what you going to do and where are you going to hide? You have a family to protect and keep safe, so do all your friends and relatives. The government have asked for as many volunteers as possible to go to a local armoury and take a weapon. Would you not step up to the plate?
By that point I would have already taken my family to safety elsewhere. (I’m very fortunate to have that option). I will neither die, nor kill, on the whim of a politician.
You’re very fortunate then, as millions wouldn’t. Also it’s not at the whim of a politician at all, it’s pure grass root survival…..kill or be killed. Time to get back to neanderthal "Neanderthals died out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather flee the country than serve it in war Id even prefer to surrender to whoever is going to win. I’ve got a great trade that’ll make me valuable to whoever the winner is. I’m not dying in a foxhole by a remote controlled drone for some rich cunts that don’t give a fuck about me Spilneless why not bugger off now" 67 years old! The guys lived through the biggest peace time expansion in history And benefited massively from a system designed for his generation, where you can buy a house on a 1 person salary, have 3 kids and a stay at home wife, living comfortably on an entry level job And now I’m spineless because I won’t go mindlessly defend the country thats helped him and forgotten me Crazy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally think it’s a great idea and btw the way I’m ex forces, did the whole cadet thing too. The lefties have decimated society and turned folk into absolute pussies and cry babies. To experience firing a weapon and the damage it causes humbles a human being and teaches respect. Most of my family were naval and fought in WW2 and campaigns since. There is nothing wrong with learning survival, those skills will never disappear and come in useful. And no I don’t advocate war on any footing, but being prepared I do. Its to easy to sit in your comfy armchair thinking we’re a member of nato and other countries and our own military forces will defend us, but those brave service men and women have loved ones whom care for them. So it’s selfish to hide behind pacifism and expect others to perish so you can have your liberty. Ex services also but the reduction in all branches of our armed forces in my time to the present isn't down to one political side which is the crux of the issue.. I'm off the mind that if (and pretty sure no one wants it to ever get to such a point) push does come to shove and the country is under direct threat that as has happened before that the reality of the situation will change opinions.. No one as you know fights for the flag, it's your mucka stood next to you and if it's your family and home that's at risk then as before people will do what's needed.. " Well said and that’s my point | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather flee the country than serve it in war Id even prefer to surrender to whoever is going to win. I’ve got a great trade that’ll make me valuable to whoever the winner is. I’m not dying in a foxhole by a remote controlled drone for some rich cunts that don’t give a fuck about me Would you let someone take those tools of your trade it that applies or walk into your home and help themselves to what you've earned? I’m more valuable using my trade to whoever the winner is. So forget the hypotheticals." The whole thread is hypothetical.. I'm not interested in the assumptions and the snide comments which inevitably litter such threads, I am curious whether your mindset to appease for your own self preservation in such a hypothetical situation where you said you would surrender and hope they valued your trade is something you might do in the not so hypothetical now..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather flee the country than serve it in war Id even prefer to surrender to whoever is going to win. I’ve got a great trade that’ll make me valuable to whoever the winner is. I’m not dying in a foxhole by a remote controlled drone for some rich cunts that don’t give a fuck about me Would you let someone take those tools of your trade it that applies or walk into your home and help themselves to what you've earned? I’m more valuable using my trade to whoever the winner is. So forget the hypotheticals. The whole thread is hypothetical.. I'm not interested in the assumptions and the snide comments which inevitably litter such threads, I am curious whether your mindset to appease for your own self preservation in such a hypothetical situation where you said you would surrender and hope they valued your trade is something you might do in the not so hypothetical now..?" In your hypothetical I’d just call the police I’m not getting stabbed or killed trying to protect easily replaced property | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather flee the country than serve it in war Id even prefer to surrender to whoever is going to win. I’ve got a great trade that’ll make me valuable to whoever the winner is. I’m not dying in a foxhole by a remote controlled drone for some rich cunts that don’t give a fuck about me " I’d hazard a guess that any invading country that succeeded in taking over would dispatch any male that deemed a threat. Leaving only elderly, women, children and educated professional people. Women can learn and carry out trade work.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As someone who served for many years this is not the answer. What makes our armed forces unique and stronger is that everyone who has or is or will be in them is there voluntarily and by choice. That means they know and understand the risk and therefore give maximum attention to the training that is given. A “people’s army” in my opinion would not work in the same fashion. The main reason they talk of this is that continues governments have stripped the armed forces of personnel. The army itself by approximately a quarter in 10 years. Now there is a risk that we may need one they are offering people they made redundant to re join or a massing of the public. Whether you agree with the armed forces or not you cannot keep stripping things for a short term financial gain then ask the public to step in. What training would be delivered and to what standard or is it Dads Army again. Lastly I was always told that an army of under 100 thousand was no longer an army, it became a home force. In my time we have gone from 108 thousand to about 77 thousand and of that they reckon 20% are medically non deployable" Totally agree with this. However, if the worst does happen, it may become needed. Far too many people are set in their delusional ways that being completely safe and secure and being unempathetic with historical events has caused.. Everybody should have to visit the Menin gate in Belgium, the Jewish memorial in Berlin and Auschwitz. People, especially the deluded pc brigade who consentrate on the stupid things that are currently flavour of the month, need to understand what happens when you have a weak nation when there are evil bastards running amok with huge armies that have been brainwashed. Fine, say you won't get called up, say you'll refuse to fight, say you'll attend a peaceful rally.... Then watch as a Russian soldier slaughters your family in front of you for no reason other than he wanted to. Then and only then will you understand the sacrifices made by our former generations which had made it so you can all live with such peace that you can think what you want to think and say what you want to ay and identify as any crazy thing you want. The fact is, IF war comes, and IF our amazing yet massively underfunded armed forces start to lose ground, it will be a very very simple choice. Either defend your freedom and way of life with as much violence and doggedness as you can possibly muster, or die or become a puppet to the Russian communist ideals, where if you are of a certain religion, or have certain sexual beliefs etc you'll just be killed anyway. Hard times create strong men, Strong men create good times, Good times create weak men, Weak men create hard times.. ----- We are here! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Then we cease to become a professional army and more a conscripted army....no thanks....the British Army are some of the best trained troops in the world for a reason. " Not disagreeing but that was probably said about the BEF as they set sail for France.. When they came back the reality was different and that led to a change of thinking and a need to conscript to survive.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather flee the country than serve it in war Id even prefer to surrender to whoever is going to win. I’ve got a great trade that’ll make me valuable to whoever the winner is. I’m not dying in a foxhole by a remote controlled drone for some rich cunts that don’t give a fuck about me I’d hazard a guess that any invading country that succeeded in taking over would dispatch any male that deemed a threat. Leaving only elderly, women, children and educated professional people. Women can learn and carry out trade work. "True. Fighting age males will be toast regardless of trade. The Russian army hasn’t been known to be an especially generous army of occupation. Look at what’s happening in Ukraine now or google “the rap e of Vienna” for a historical reference. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Either defend your freedom and way of life with as much violence and doggedness as you can possibly muster, or die or become a puppet to the Russian communist ideals, where if you are of a certain religion, or have certain sexual beliefs etc you'll just be killed anyway. " I think everyone should learn politics at school. Russia is not a communist country and hasn’t been for decades. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather flee the country than serve it in war Id even prefer to surrender to whoever is going to win. I’ve got a great trade that’ll make me valuable to whoever the winner is. I’m not dying in a foxhole by a remote controlled drone for some rich cunts that don’t give a fuck about me I’d hazard a guess that any invading country that succeeded in taking over would dispatch any male that deemed a threat. Leaving only elderly, women, children and educated professional people. Women can learn and carry out trade work. "This is why civilians are in charge and soldiers take orders. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather flee the country than serve it in war Id even prefer to surrender to whoever is going to win. I’ve got a great trade that’ll make me valuable to whoever the winner is. I’m not dying in a foxhole by a remote controlled drone for some rich cunts that don’t give a fuck about me I’d hazard a guess that any invading country that succeeded in taking over would dispatch any male that deemed a threat. Leaving only elderly, women, children and educated professional people. Women can learn and carry out trade work. "Ww2 proved that wrong After a war you’re already low on men. Any willing to cooperate are a valuable resource, especially if that have a trade that takes a decade to learn properly. Personally, I welcome our new Russian overlords. And I think I’m lucky enough to fall in the right side of “everyone’s equal, some are just more equal then others” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Then we cease to become a professional army and more a conscripted army....no thanks....the British Army are some of the best trained troops in the world for a reason. Not disagreeing but that was probably said about the BEF as they set sail for France.. When they came back the reality was different and that led to a change of thinking and a need to conscript to survive.." I think the idea is that regular army and the conscripts would be kept separate. Using conscripts for wars that aren’t about national survival would be deeply unpopular. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather flee the country than serve it in war Id even prefer to surrender to whoever is going to win. I’ve got a great trade that’ll make me valuable to whoever the winner is. I’m not dying in a foxhole by a remote controlled drone for some rich cunts that don’t give a fuck about me I’d hazard a guess that any invading country that succeeded in taking over would dispatch any male that deemed a threat. Leaving only elderly, women, children and educated professional people. Women can learn and carry out trade work.
Ww2 proved that wrong
After a war you’re already low on men. Any willing to cooperate are a valuable resource, especially if that have a trade that takes a decade to learn properly.
Personally, I welcome our new Russian overlords.
And I think I’m lucky enough to fall in the right side of “everyone’s equal, some are just more equal then others” "Na, you’re getting shot in the town square as an example to others. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So I’m against it personally although due to my old age it’s unlikely to affect me. That said every both world wars were fought with a mobilised civilian army with 880+ casualties in WWI and 330k+ in WWI. By contract they are saying that the army is only 75k today. I’ve seen some great commentary on X And LBC from people discussing this especially people with dual citizenship and people of colour who are consistently remembered that they arent really British " That’s not “great commentary”. That’s intentional negativity and sewing of division. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it’s selfish to hide behind pacifism and expect others to perish so you can have your liberty. I support fully the need for a well paid and highly trained military, and respect those who serve willingly. I don’t support conscripting those who have no desire to fight (or further, are morally aghast at the thought of war). Sanders has said he’s opposed to conscription, but wanting folk to be ‘prepared’…. Which is basically training to use a weapon and basic field craft and tactics. Bloody good idea
For those willing to learn, sure.
I have no interest in learning to use a weapon, since I’m not going to kill anyone with it.
So think of this, as far fetched as it is. Just say the ruskies manage to get all the way through Europe and are filling up boats ready to cross the North Sea to invade the U.K….. bear in mind that most our forces may have perished in the mainland battle in Europe. News alert is that they will land on U.K. soil in a day or so, what you going to do and where are you going to hide? You have a family to protect and keep safe, so do all your friends and relatives. The government have asked for as many volunteers as possible to go to a local armoury and take a weapon. Would you not step up to the plate?
By that point I would have already taken my family to safety elsewhere. (I’m very fortunate to have that option). I will neither die, nor kill, on the whim of a politician.
You’re very fortunate then, as millions wouldn’t. Also it’s not at the whim of a politician at all, it’s pure grass root survival…..kill or be killed. Time to get back to neanderthal
War is always at the whim of politicians. Borders are political constructs. War *is* politics.
And another thing about war? It always ends with politicians talking around a table. "Loving the Von Clausewitz reference. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather flee the country than serve it in war Id even prefer to surrender to whoever is going to win. I’ve got a great trade that’ll make me valuable to whoever the winner is. I’m not dying in a foxhole by a remote controlled drone for some rich cunts that don’t give a fuck about me I’d hazard a guess that any invading country that succeeded in taking over would dispatch any male that deemed a threat. Leaving only elderly, women, children and educated professional people. Women can learn and carry out trade work.
Ww2 proved that wrong
After a war you’re already low on men. Any willing to cooperate are a valuable resource, especially if that have a trade that takes a decade to learn properly.
Personally, I welcome our new Russian overlords.
And I think I’m lucky enough to fall in the right side of “everyone’s equal, some are just more equal then others”
Na, you’re getting shot in the town square as an example to others."We’ll agree to disagree there Plus, flee is still on the cards. Canada and US have my trade on a list for fast entry. I’ll be gone the moment it looks like things are getting bad The willingness of people to die in a foxhole for the wealthy elite that couldn’t give a fuck about you is crazy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Instead of a citizen army they hold veterans on retainer. Not as reservists but ready to step back up again when needed. Or bring back national service. Give the youth discipline again! " Not enough veterans nowadays because the army has been so small for so long. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather flee the country than serve it in war Id even prefer to surrender to whoever is going to win. I’ve got a great trade that’ll make me valuable to whoever the winner is. I’m not dying in a foxhole by a remote controlled drone for some rich cunts that don’t give a fuck about me I’d hazard a guess that any invading country that succeeded in taking over would dispatch any male that deemed a threat. Leaving only elderly, women, children and educated professional people. Women can learn and carry out trade work.
Ww2 proved that wrong
After a war you’re already low on men. Any willing to cooperate are a valuable resource, especially if that have a trade that takes a decade to learn properly.
Personally, I welcome our new Russian overlords.
And I think I’m lucky enough to fall in the right side of “everyone’s equal, some are just more equal then others”
Na, you’re getting shot in the town square as an example to others.
We’ll agree to disagree there
Plus, flee is still on the cards. Canada and US have my trade on a list for fast entry. I’ll be gone the moment it looks like things are getting bad
The willingness of people to die in a foxhole for the wealthy elite that couldn’t give a fuck about you is crazy "You do know that most people survive war? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather flee the country than serve it in war Id even prefer to surrender to whoever is going to win. I’ve got a great trade that’ll make me valuable to whoever the winner is. I’m not dying in a foxhole by a remote controlled drone for some rich cunts that don’t give a fuck about me " In that case you should be locked up. No way would I ever support “whoever is going to win”. You talk about “cunt that don’t give a fuck about me”… which is extremely self centred. Don’t you care about the rest of the people of the country? The “rich cunts” only make up less than 1%. Don’t you care about everyone else? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather flee the country than serve it in war Id even prefer to surrender to whoever is going to win. I’ve got a great trade that’ll make me valuable to whoever the winner is. I’m not dying in a foxhole by a remote controlled drone for some rich cunts that don’t give a fuck about me In that case you should be locked up. No way would I ever support “whoever is going to win”. You talk about “cunt that don’t give a fuck about me”… which is extremely self centred. Don’t you care about the rest of the people of the country? The “rich cunts” only make up less than 1%. Don’t you care about everyone else? " Locked up for not being willing to kill? Sounds a bit fascist, that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather flee the country than serve it in war Id even prefer to surrender to whoever is going to win. I’ve got a great trade that’ll make me valuable to whoever the winner is. I’m not dying in a foxhole by a remote controlled drone for some rich cunts that don’t give a fuck about me I’d hazard a guess that any invading country that succeeded in taking over would dispatch any male that deemed a threat. Leaving only elderly, women, children and educated professional people. Women can learn and carry out trade work.
Ww2 proved that wrong
After a war you’re already low on men. Any willing to cooperate are a valuable resource, especially if that have a trade that takes a decade to learn properly.
Personally, I welcome our new Russian overlords.
And I think I’m lucky enough to fall in the right side of “everyone’s equal, some are just more equal then others”
Na, you’re getting shot in the town square as an example to others.
We’ll agree to disagree there
Plus, flee is still on the cards. Canada and US have my trade on a list for fast entry. I’ll be gone the moment it looks like things are getting bad
The willingness of people to die in a foxhole for the wealthy elite that couldn’t give a fuck about you is crazy "You should leave already if that’s your attitude. Do you think the Americans care about you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather flee the country than serve it in war Id even prefer to surrender to whoever is going to win. I’ve got a great trade that’ll make me valuable to whoever the winner is. I’m not dying in a foxhole by a remote controlled drone for some rich cunts that don’t give a fuck about me In that case you should be locked up. No way would I ever support “whoever is going to win”. You talk about “cunt that don’t give a fuck about me”… which is extremely self centred. Don’t you care about the rest of the people of the country? The “rich cunts” only make up less than 1%. Don’t you care about everyone else? Locked up for not being willing to kill? Sounds a bit fascist, that. " No. Locked up for being willing to let your own citizens die, so that you can benefit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here’s a thought for you all. In WW1 only 2% of soldiers on both side actually shot to kill. This is how hard most people find it to kill another human being, the army was mainly made up of volunteers and conscripts (a citizen army so to speak). To empathise there was a rifle or should I say musket found at I think Gettysburg but one of the big battles of the US civil war. It had 10 unified shots in it. This means the soldier who it belonged to stood in line facing the enemy. He loaded the weapon 10 times but never pulled the trigger. Not a coward just a man who could not kill his fellow man. Soldiers of modern armies train and train so the actual act of killing (shooting the enemy) is done without thinking. That comes after PTSD. Look at the modern wars Falklands, Desert Storm, etc the conscript army even though vastly superior in numbers always losses out to the smaller professional army. A citizen army is a bad idea, it’s like a welder going to try his hand at brain surgery. Add to this that only 15-20% of soldiers in WW2 fired their weapon at all, with those who did, as elucidated above, almost all firing above the heads of their enemies. Killing is not natural, people have to be trained to kill, and I really don’t think having a country full of trained killers is the best way to having a safe society. And if somebody is not trained to kill, then what’s the point in them being given a gun in the first place? Sadly killing is very natural to humans. There are cave paintings of human conflict. It is said to be the second oldest profession. I think the general’s suggestion is that we do train people to use firearms, so that they have a level of training when we do give them a weapon. The oldest paintings of human conflict discovered were in Northern Australia, and date to 10,000 years ago. They are thought to depict conflict between hunter gatherers over food. In the paleolithic era population density was so low that conflict over resource was very unlikely. The migration from Africa is widely believed to be an effort to avoid conflict in favour of discovering new resources. The first archaeological evidence of large scale violence coincides with an ecological disaster, and indicates a conflict over resources. Historical evidence shows that humans naturally attempt to avoid conflict, if they possibly can. More recent historical evidence shows that even when facing an enemy the vast majority of people will not shoot and even if they do, they will shoot over their heads. What’s the point of giving people guns if they won’t use them? " I understand what you’re saying about “live and let live” among some conscripted soldiers during WW2, but somebody must’ve killed all those nazis and won the war? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather flee the country than serve it in war Id even prefer to surrender to whoever is going to win. I’ve got a great trade that’ll make me valuable to whoever the winner is. I’m not dying in a foxhole by a remote controlled drone for some rich cunts that don’t give a fuck about me I’d hazard a guess that any invading country that succeeded in taking over would dispatch any male that deemed a threat. Leaving only elderly, women, children and educated professional people. Women can learn and carry out trade work.
Ww2 proved that wrong
After a war you’re already low on men. Any willing to cooperate are a valuable resource, especially if that have a trade that takes a decade to learn properly.
Personally, I welcome our new Russian overlords.
And I think I’m lucky enough to fall in the right side of “everyone’s equal, some are just more equal then others”
Na, you’re getting shot in the town square as an example to others.
We’ll agree to disagree there
Plus, flee is still on the cards. Canada and US have my trade on a list for fast entry. I’ll be gone the moment it looks like things are getting bad
The willingness of people to die in a foxhole for the wealthy elite that couldn’t give a fuck about you is crazy
You should leave already if that’s your attitude. Do you think the Americans care about you?"I’m not leave because that care more I’d leave because an invasion is happening But go ahead, feel free to get in the foxhole. I’m sure you’ll be treated a hero like all the others vets were | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather flee the country than serve it in war Id even prefer to surrender to whoever is going to win. I’ve got a great trade that’ll make me valuable to whoever the winner is. I’m not dying in a foxhole by a remote controlled drone for some rich cunts that don’t give a fuck about me I’d hazard a guess that any invading country that succeeded in taking over would dispatch any male that deemed a threat. Leaving only elderly, women, children and educated professional people. Women can learn and carry out trade work.
Ww2 proved that wrong
After a war you’re already low on men. Any willing to cooperate are a valuable resource, especially if that have a trade that takes a decade to learn properly.
Personally, I welcome our new Russian overlords.
And I think I’m lucky enough to fall in the right side of “everyone’s equal, some are just more equal then others”
Na, you’re getting shot in the town square as an example to others.
We’ll agree to disagree there
Plus, flee is still on the cards. Canada and US have my trade on a list for fast entry. I’ll be gone the moment it looks like things are getting bad
The willingness of people to die in a foxhole for the wealthy elite that couldn’t give a fuck about you is crazy "Then you'd come back after the war and complain that somebody should have done something to save all the people you loved and cared about as they all lie scattered about their old neighbourhood. Thankfully people didn't have that mindset of let everyone else do everything for you back in the 1940s. If they did you wouldn't have the choice to flee or even to share the opinion you have now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I volunteer to be an armoured vehicle. A bit of armour plating and off-road tyres and I'd be good to go! " Does that mean you "identify" as a one? Haha | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I volunteer to be an armoured vehicle. A bit of armour plating and off-road tyres and I'd be good to go! Does that mean you "identify" as a one? Haha " No. I identify as a lunatic who would defend her family to the last second. Even though I'm on wheels. I watched the exodus of Ukrainian women and children, people walking hundreds of miles to cross the border with Poland. I thought about what we'd do if Mr KC was conscripted and I was left "holding the baby". I imagined how I might get my child to safety, on my own, in a wheelchair. I'd do it. I'd push to the ends of the earth and attempt to get past anyone who got in my way. In reality, I'd be a total liability and waste of space in a fighting force, unless I could get an office role away from the front line. I'd do my bit, though, as best I could. Mr KC would fight, if he had to and god forbid the Russian that comes up against him if he's properly angry. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Power to the people. The Tooting people front. One for the nerds. "And the oldies | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s plain to see that at this point the threat from Russia is purely from a nuclear standpoint, their much “feared” conventional forces have actually been shown to be woefully underwhelming, riddled with corruption and poorly equipped. At this point Russia would be hard pressed to stand up against Poland in a conventional conflict, let alone the whole NATO alliance. Ukraine have fought them to a standstill with a fraction of the Russian manpower, barely any air support and no navy, and with some of the equipment being a generation behind what the likes of us, Germany, France and especially the US could field. This is purely a call for a larger budget for the armed forces, but done in a manner that isn’t a direct plea for cash" Probably, an accurate assessment of Russia at the moment. But I don’t think that it is just Russia that people are worrying about, more the potential combination of Russia, Iran and China. It is easily arguable that it is not happenstance that all the Iranian proxies have kicked off in the last 6 months to divert the support away from Ukraine. Peace dividend - spent, gone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d be up for the training if it came to it. Damn fucking right I’d defend my family until my last breath. Some of the comments on here are unbelievable. " Well said!! No room for shitebags in this country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather flee the country than serve it in war Id even prefer to surrender to whoever is going to win. I’ve got a great trade that’ll make me valuable to whoever the winner is. I’m not dying in a foxhole by a remote controlled drone for some rich cunts that don’t give a fuck about me Spilneless why not bugger off now Cos I’m fine as it is If you wanna go die in a foxhole for a bunch of rich cunts that created a system where you can’t afford a house, go right ahead It’s only those that know they won’t be in the foxhole pointing fingers " Already have done, 30 years in the millitery fought in Dofar, N. Ireland, Falklsnds & G Ulf War | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s plain to see that at this point the threat from Russia is purely from a nuclear standpoint, their much “feared” conventional forces have actually been shown to be woefully underwhelming, riddled with corruption and poorly equipped. At this point Russia would be hard pressed to stand up against Poland in a conventional conflict, let alone the whole NATO alliance. Ukraine have fought them to a standstill with a fraction of the Russian manpower, barely any air support and no navy, and with some of the equipment being a generation behind what the likes of us, Germany, France and especially the US could field. This is purely a call for a larger budget for the armed forces, but done in a manner that isn’t a direct plea for cash Probably, an accurate assessment of Russia at the moment. But I don’t think that it is just Russia that people are worrying about, more the potential combination of Russia, Iran and China. It is easily arguable that it is not happenstance that all the Iranian proxies have kicked off in the last 6 months to divert the support away from Ukraine. Peace dividend - spent, gone. " We’d have bigger issues if china wants to jump in Just for example, china makes 80% of the worlds insulin. How many people in the west die within in the first month without a constant supply of insulin? And that’s just one thing. China is a production powerhouse. That’s their superpower | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather flee the country than serve it in war Id even prefer to surrender to whoever is going to win. I’ve got a great trade that’ll make me valuable to whoever the winner is. I’m not dying in a foxhole by a remote controlled drone for some rich cunts that don’t give a fuck about me Spilneless why not bugger off now Cos I’m fine as it is If you wanna go die in a foxhole for a bunch of rich cunts that created a system where you can’t afford a house, go right ahead It’s only those that know they won’t be in the foxhole pointing fingers Already have done, 30 years in the millitery fought in Dofar, N. Ireland, Falklsnds & G Ulf War" If it was possible to “like” a post, I would like this one. Respect sir! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think what’s interesting and reading all of this is the perception of what people think the armed forces do and why people join Primarily people don’t join to go to war, however they go and most if they come back physically intact carry huge mental scars that they are then receive no support with. Most join for job security, a trade, because society does not want the little shits we create. I sat on a meeting with a sergeant major from an infantry battalion who said he actively recruits “bastards”. He meant people whose family don’t want them and the military becomes their family. Whatever your views are and they are personal to you the people of the armed forces do a job that they know what the risk is. Same as anyone in any job. Many went years seeing no action, some see too much, same as doctors and nurses and whoever. There is work place trauma in every job. Most wars will be fought in cyber space now or air space. Many ways to cripple countries without firing a bullet. Please don’t tarnish every member of the armed forces or people who don’t agree with them the same. We are all entitled to an opinion " They recruit ‘bastards’ as bastards have grit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think what’s interesting and reading all of this is the perception of what people think the armed forces do and why people join Primarily people don’t join to go to war, however they go and most if they come back physically intact carry huge mental scars that they are then receive no support with. Most join for job security, a trade, because society does not want the little shits we create. I sat on a meeting with a sergeant major from an infantry battalion who said he actively recruits “bastards”. He meant people whose family don’t want them and the military becomes their family. Whatever your views are and they are personal to you the people of the armed forces do a job that they know what the risk is. Same as anyone in any job. Many went years seeing no action, some see too much, same as doctors and nurses and whoever. There is work place trauma in every job. Most wars will be fought in cyber space now or air space. Many ways to cripple countries without firing a bullet. Please don’t tarnish every member of the armed forces or people who don’t agree with them the same. We are all entitled to an opinion They recruit ‘bastards’ as bastards have grit "No. People who have no shits to give and feel no sense of belonging in society are, generally, easier to mould to the military. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here’s a thought for you all. In WW1 only 2% of soldiers on both side actually shot to kill. This is how hard most people find it to kill another human being, the army was mainly made up of volunteers and conscripts (a citizen army so to speak). To empathise there was a rifle or should I say musket found at I think Gettysburg but one of the big battles of the US civil war. It had 10 unified shots in it. This means the soldier who it belonged to stood in line facing the enemy. He loaded the weapon 10 times but never pulled the trigger. Not a coward just a man who could not kill his fellow man. Soldiers of modern armies train and train so the actual act of killing (shooting the enemy) is done without thinking. That comes after PTSD. Look at the modern wars Falklands, Desert Storm, etc the conscript army even though vastly superior in numbers always losses out to the smaller professional army. A citizen army is a bad idea, it’s like a welder going to try his hand at brain surgery. Add to this that only 15-20% of soldiers in WW2 fired their weapon at all, with those who did, as elucidated above, almost all firing above the heads of their enemies. Killing is not natural, people have to be trained to kill, and I really don’t think having a country full of trained killers is the best way to having a safe society. And if somebody is not trained to kill, then what’s the point in them being given a gun in the first place? Sadly killing is very natural to humans. There are cave paintings of human conflict. It is said to be the second oldest profession. I think the general’s suggestion is that we do train people to use firearms, so that they have a level of training when we do give them a weapon. The oldest paintings of human conflict discovered were in Northern Australia, and date to 10,000 years ago. They are thought to depict conflict between hunter gatherers over food. In the paleolithic era population density was so low that conflict over resource was very unlikely. The migration from Africa is widely believed to be an effort to avoid conflict in favour of discovering new resources. The first archaeological evidence of large scale violence coincides with an ecological disaster, and indicates a conflict over resources. Historical evidence shows that humans naturally attempt to avoid conflict, if they possibly can. More recent historical evidence shows that even when facing an enemy the vast majority of people will not shoot and even if they do, they will shoot over their heads. What’s the point of giving people guns if they won’t use them? I understand what you’re saying about “live and let live” among some conscripted soldiers during WW2, but somebody must’ve killed all those nazis and won the war?" Bombs, artillery, and about 2% of infantrymen. The point is not that professional soldiers don’t kill people, it’s what they are conditioned to do. The point is that people who aren’t conditioned to kill don’t. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s plain to see that at this point the threat from Russia is purely from a nuclear standpoint, their much “feared” conventional forces have actually been shown to be woefully underwhelming, riddled with corruption and poorly equipped. At this point Russia would be hard pressed to stand up against Poland in a conventional conflict, let alone the whole NATO alliance. Ukraine have fought them to a standstill with a fraction of the Russian manpower, barely any air support and no navy, and with some of the equipment being a generation behind what the likes of us, Germany, France and especially the US could field. This is purely a call for a larger budget for the armed forces, but done in a manner that isn’t a direct plea for cash Probably, an accurate assessment of Russia at the moment. But I don’t think that it is just Russia that people are worrying about, more the potential combination of Russia, Iran and China. It is easily arguable that it is not happenstance that all the Iranian proxies have kicked off in the last 6 months to divert the support away from Ukraine. Peace dividend - spent, gone. We’d have bigger issues if china wants to jump in Just for example, china makes 80% of the worlds insulin. How many people in the west die within in the first month without a constant supply of insulin? And that’s just one thing. China is a production powerhouse. That’s their superpower " Thats a useless argument. China make insulin because we pay them to. Not because we can’t make it. If they stopped then we’d manufacture it. It’s not hard, it’s been around for over 100 years. You seem to have a very negative and pessimistic outlook, and an unrealistic view of the country we live in, and of the west in general. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it would be a great idea to unleash the menopausal midlifers on any threat to anyone anywhere. It would solve many world issues. " ??????????love that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s plain to see that at this point the threat from Russia is purely from a nuclear standpoint, their much “feared” conventional forces have actually been shown to be woefully underwhelming, riddled with corruption and poorly equipped. At this point Russia would be hard pressed to stand up against Poland in a conventional conflict, let alone the whole NATO alliance. Ukraine have fought them to a standstill with a fraction of the Russian manpower, barely any air support and no navy, and with some of the equipment being a generation behind what the likes of us, Germany, France and especially the US could field. This is purely a call for a larger budget for the armed forces, but done in a manner that isn’t a direct plea for cash Probably, an accurate assessment of Russia at the moment. But I don’t think that it is just Russia that people are worrying about, more the potential combination of Russia, Iran and China. It is easily arguable that it is not happenstance that all the Iranian proxies have kicked off in the last 6 months to divert the support away from Ukraine. Peace dividend - spent, gone. We’d have bigger issues if china wants to jump in Just for example, china makes 80% of the worlds insulin. How many people in the west die within in the first month without a constant supply of insulin? And that’s just one thing. China is a production powerhouse. That’s their superpower Thats a useless argument. China make insulin because we pay them to. Not because we can’t make it. If they stopped then we’d manufacture it. It’s not hard, it’s been around for over 100 years. You seem to have a very negative and pessimistic outlook, and an unrealistic view of the country we live in, and of the west in general." If you think the west can just switch up mass levels of production that china currently deals with, all while also fighting a war, I think you’ve got a naive view. And I don’t think I’ve given any view of the west or our country, just that I won’t die for it in a foxhole. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it would be a great idea to unleash the menopausal midlifers on any threat to anyone anywhere. It would solve many world issues. " It’s the midlife (male) menopausers who are the ones cheering for a ‘citizens army’ as far as I can see. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Power to the people. The Tooting people front. One for the nerds.
And the oldies "Wolfie. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"IF Russia takes am aggressive stance towards the UK then the US will stand up, Nato will rally up. A home guard would be laughable, we already have army reservists. They would get called up before a home force is considered. I've done my service to this country and would step up if needed, I'm sure in not the only vet which would. " We have around 20,000 army reservists. Russia has 2million. Most of our reservists are medically or physically unfit. Russia possibly has similar fitness issues but has fewer qualms about putting unfit people into operational service. Once an attack begins, we won’t have time to train civilians. The time to start training civilians to be soldiers is long before the attack so that they can be readied with minimal preparation. If we do it properly, we’ll never need them. “If you want peace, prepare for war” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it would be a great idea to unleash the menopausal midlifers on any threat to anyone anywhere. It would solve many world issues. " Hell yeah! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morning shag
I think it’s a bad idea. You’d have a load of trigger happy arnie wannabes jumping on it thinking it’d be like call of duty I think everyone should refuse, can’t go to war with no army can you "No, but you can get invaded and absolutely wiped out without one | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"IF Russia takes am aggressive stance towards the UK then the US will stand up, Nato will rally up. A home guard would be laughable, we already have army reservists. They would get called up before a home force is considered. I've done my service to this country and would step up if needed, I'm sure in not the only vet which would. We have around 20,000 army reservists. Russia has 2million. Most of our reservists are medically or physically unfit. Russia possibly has similar fitness issues but has fewer qualms about putting unfit people into operational service. Once an attack begins, we won’t have time to train civilians. The time to start training civilians to be soldiers is long before the attack so that they can be readied with minimal preparation. If we do it properly, we’ll never need them. “If you want peace, prepare for war” " Well said that man | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Instead of a citizen army they hold veterans on retainer. Not as reservists but ready to step back up again when needed. Or bring back national service. Give the youth discipline again! " This is truly scary thinking | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Start by recruiting all the 'new Britons' filling our hotels. Sounds a wee bit “ist”" Don't care, that worn, faded, dog eared card has expired with me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why is this thread comparing Russian numbers to UK numbers? NATO has like 3.5 million personnel Why are we pretending that Russia is somehow gonna leap past Europe, attack the UK and NATO won’t enact article 5?" Would Russia be isolated or part of an alliance with china and North Korea? They’re currently being supplied weapons from them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather flee the country than serve it in war Id even prefer to surrender to whoever is going to win. I’ve got a great trade that’ll make me valuable to whoever the winner is. I’m not dying in a foxhole by a remote controlled drone for some rich cunts that don’t give a fuck about me " You’ve really rattled the gelat ma cuntry lot with this one | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s try getting rid of our politicians who want us to go to war first?? " We having a revolution? I’m in | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why is this thread comparing Russian numbers to UK numbers? NATO has like 3.5 million personnel Why are we pretending that Russia is somehow gonna leap past Europe, attack the UK and NATO won’t enact article 5? Would Russia be isolated or part of an alliance with china and North Korea? They’re currently being supplied weapons from them." Potentially, but then let’s compare that Everyone seems to think it’s Russia vs uk 31 nato states are all being told to increase their military power | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather flee the country than serve it in war Id even prefer to surrender to whoever is going to win. I’ve got a great trade that’ll make me valuable to whoever the winner is. I’m not dying in a foxhole by a remote controlled drone for some rich cunts that don’t give a fuck about me You’ve really rattled the gelat ma cuntry lot with this one" I don’t give a fuck about him. And I’m skint. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather flee the country than serve it in war Id even prefer to surrender to whoever is going to win. I’ve got a great trade that’ll make me valuable to whoever the winner is. I’m not dying in a foxhole by a remote controlled drone for some rich cunts that don’t give a fuck about me You’ve really rattled the gelat ma cuntry lot with this one" I actually admire the men’s reaction to it. FairPlay if you want to go die for your country, that’s just not for me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather flee the country than serve it in war Id even prefer to surrender to whoever is going to win. I’ve got a great trade that’ll make me valuable to whoever the winner is. I’m not dying in a foxhole by a remote controlled drone for some rich cunts that don’t give a fuck about me In that case you should be locked up. No way would I ever support “whoever is going to win”. You talk about “cunt that don’t give a fuck about me”… which is extremely self centred. Don’t you care about the rest of the people of the country? The “rich cunts” only make up less than 1%. Don’t you care about everyone else? Locked up for not being willing to kill? Sounds a bit fascist, that. No. Locked up for being willing to let your own citizens die, so that you can benefit." Surely the govt. conscripting people who don’t want to fight are willing to let their own citizens die, no? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it would be a great idea to unleash the menopausal midlifers on any threat to anyone anywhere. It would solve many world issues. It’s the midlife (male) menopausers who are the ones cheering for a ‘citizens army’ as far as I can see." DILFs army | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morning shag
I think it’s a bad idea. You’d have a load of trigger happy arnie wannabes jumping on it thinking it’d be like call of duty I think everyone should refuse, can’t go to war with no army can you
No, but you can get invaded and absolutely wiped out without one
This is hilarious. In what world would a country, without provocation just invade the UK or wipe out literally millions of civilians of many different nationalities? In what world? This hypothetical bullshit to justify militarisation is absolutely insane. We live in the modern world.
The fear around getting rid of a military in the modern world is proof that it’s fear that leads to war more than anything else. "I mean, that’s just naive. Incredibly naive when a country that lacked the military power to protect itself is being invaded right now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So many men wanking off over the fantasy of Russia invading, just go and play COD lads." Niche for a new fetish….. action men | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather flee the country than serve it in war Id even prefer to surrender to whoever is going to win. I’ve got a great trade that’ll make me valuable to whoever the winner is. I’m not dying in a foxhole by a remote controlled drone for some rich cunts that don’t give a fuck about me I’d hazard a guess that any invading country that succeeded in taking over would dispatch any male that deemed a threat. Leaving only elderly, women, children and educated professional people. Women can learn and carry out trade work.
Ww2 proved that wrong
After a war you’re already low on men. Any willing to cooperate are a valuable resource, especially if that have a trade that takes a decade to learn properly.
Personally, I welcome our new Russian overlords.
And I think I’m lucky enough to fall in the right side of “everyone’s equal, some are just more equal then others”
Na, you’re getting shot in the town square as an example to others.
We’ll agree to disagree there
Plus, flee is still on the cards. Canada and US have my trade on a list for fast entry. I’ll be gone the moment it looks like things are getting bad
The willingness of people to die in a foxhole for the wealthy elite that couldn’t give a fuck about you is crazy
Then you'd come back after the war and complain that somebody should have done something to save all the people you loved and cared about as they all lie scattered about their old neighbourhood.
Thankfully people didn't have that mindset of let everyone else do everything for you back in the 1940s. If they did you wouldn't have the choice to flee or even to share the opinion you have now. "We had conscientious objectors in WW2 didn’t we? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morning shag
I think it’s a bad idea. You’d have a load of trigger happy arnie wannabes jumping on it thinking it’d be like call of duty I think everyone should refuse, can’t go to war with no army can you
No, but you can get invaded and absolutely wiped out without one
This is hilarious. In what world would a country, without provocation just invade the UK or wipe out literally millions of civilians of many different nationalities? In what world? This hypothetical bullshit to justify militarisation is absolutely insane. We live in the modern world.
The fear around getting rid of a military in the modern world is proof that it’s fear that leads to war more than anything else.
I mean, that’s just naive. Incredibly naive when a country that lacked the military power to protect itself is being invaded right now "I just deleted my post because I cba to get involved in long back and forths on this but I will say that a) demilitarisation isn’t naive and b) you’re massively oversimplifying a political situation that has led to that conflict. Massively. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morning shag
I think it’s a bad idea. You’d have a load of trigger happy arnie wannabes jumping on it thinking it’d be like call of duty I think everyone should refuse, can’t go to war with no army can you
No, but you can get invaded and absolutely wiped out without one
This is hilarious. In what world would a country, without provocation just invade the UK or wipe out literally millions of civilians of many different nationalities? In what world? This hypothetical bullshit to justify militarisation is absolutely insane. We live in the modern world.
The fear around getting rid of a military in the modern world is proof that it’s fear that leads to war more than anything else.
I mean, that’s just naive. Incredibly naive when a country that lacked the military power to protect itself is being invaded right now
I just deleted my post because I cba to get involved in long back and forths on this but I will say that a) demilitarisation isn’t naive and b) you’re massively oversimplifying a political situation that has led to that conflict. Massively. "I don’t blame you for backing out of that one. Had Ukraine had the military power to protect itself then this war wouldn’t be happening. Military deterrents are the best way to keep peace in the current world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather flee the country than serve it in war Id even prefer to surrender to whoever is going to win. I’ve got a great trade that’ll make me valuable to whoever the winner is. I’m not dying in a foxhole by a remote controlled drone for some rich cunts that don’t give a fuck about me I’d hazard a guess that any invading country that succeeded in taking over would dispatch any male that deemed a threat. Leaving only elderly, women, children and educated professional people. Women can learn and carry out trade work.
Ww2 proved that wrong
After a war you’re already low on men. Any willing to cooperate are a valuable resource, especially if that have a trade that takes a decade to learn properly.
Personally, I welcome our new Russian overlords.
And I think I’m lucky enough to fall in the right side of “everyone’s equal, some are just more equal then others”
Na, you’re getting shot in the town square as an example to others.
We’ll agree to disagree there
Plus, flee is still on the cards. Canada and US have my trade on a list for fast entry. I’ll be gone the moment it looks like things are getting bad
The willingness of people to die in a foxhole for the wealthy elite that couldn’t give a fuck about you is crazy
Then you'd come back after the war and complain that somebody should have done something to save all the people you loved and cared about as they all lie scattered about their old neighbourhood.
Thankfully people didn't have that mindset of let everyone else do everything for you back in the 1940s. If they did you wouldn't have the choice to flee or even to share the opinion you have now.
We had conscientious objectors in WW2 didn’t we?"We did and many of them served in non combatant roles. Have a religious/moral objection to taking life and serving within those boundaries is very different from running away. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morning shag
I think it’s a bad idea. You’d have a load of trigger happy arnie wannabes jumping on it thinking it’d be like call of duty I think everyone should refuse, can’t go to war with no army can you
No, but you can get invaded and absolutely wiped out without one
This is hilarious. In what world would a country, without provocation just invade the UK or wipe out literally millions of civilians of many different nationalities? In what world? This hypothetical bullshit to justify militarisation is absolutely insane. We live in the modern world.
The fear around getting rid of a military in the modern world is proof that it’s fear that leads to war more than anything else.
I mean, that’s just naive. Incredibly naive when a country that lacked the military power to protect itself is being invaded right now
I just deleted my post because I cba to get involved in long back and forths on this but I will say that a) demilitarisation isn’t naive and b) you’re massively oversimplifying a political situation that has led to that conflict. Massively. "Ukraine removed its nuclear weapons and downsized its military. Got invaded by Russia and is now pretty well fucked. It’s not complicated unless you want it to be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morning shag
I think it’s a bad idea. You’d have a load of trigger happy arnie wannabes jumping on it thinking it’d be like call of duty I think everyone should refuse, can’t go to war with no army can you
No, but you can get invaded and absolutely wiped out without one
This is hilarious. In what world would a country, without provocation just invade the UK or wipe out literally millions of civilians of many different nationalities? In what world? This hypothetical bullshit to justify militarisation is absolutely insane. We live in the modern world.
The fear around getting rid of a military in the modern world is proof that it’s fear that leads to war more than anything else.
I mean, that’s just naive. Incredibly naive when a country that lacked the military power to protect itself is being invaded right now
I just deleted my post because I cba to get involved in long back and forths on this but I will say that a) demilitarisation isn’t naive and b) you’re massively oversimplifying a political situation that has led to that conflict. Massively.
I don’t blame you for backing out of that one. Had Ukraine had the military power to protect itself then this war wouldn’t be happening.
Military deterrents are the best way to keep peace in the current world. "Because fear drives men to war. Military deterrents are only the best way in a world in which you believe that everyone wants to blow you up. Again, you’re oversimplifying what happened with Ukraine and applying it to the UK. Demilitarisation should be a global endeavour. That’s a better way to secure peace. For centuries militaries have caused horrors around the world. Drones and nukes are not going to give us peace | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it would be a great idea to unleash the menopausal midlifers on any threat to anyone anywhere. It would solve many world issues. It’s the midlife (male) menopausers who are the ones cheering for a ‘citizens army’ as far as I can see. DILFs army" Charging into battle in their convertibles, wearing their bootcut jeans and slip ons. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morning shag
I think it’s a bad idea. You’d have a load of trigger happy arnie wannabes jumping on it thinking it’d be like call of duty I think everyone should refuse, can’t go to war with no army can you
No, but you can get invaded and absolutely wiped out without one
This is hilarious. In what world would a country, without provocation just invade the UK or wipe out literally millions of civilians of many different nationalities? In what world? This hypothetical bullshit to justify militarisation is absolutely insane. We live in the modern world.
The fear around getting rid of a military in the modern world is proof that it’s fear that leads to war more than anything else.
I mean, that’s just naive. Incredibly naive when a country that lacked the military power to protect itself is being invaded right now
I just deleted my post because I cba to get involved in long back and forths on this but I will say that a) demilitarisation isn’t naive and b) you’re massively oversimplifying a political situation that has led to that conflict. Massively.
Ukraine removed its nuclear weapons and downsized its military.
Got invaded by Russia and is now pretty well fucked.
It’s not complicated unless you want it to be."No it is complicated because the situation in Ukraine is one that has come from a political conflict and it’s a complicated one that didn’t spring up out of nowhere, randomly, between the two. (That isn’t me giving an opinion on it btw). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Drones and nukes are not going to give us peace "They used to. Then we demilitarised and the world became a much more dangerous place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morning shag
I think it’s a bad idea. You’d have a load of trigger happy arnie wannabes jumping on it thinking it’d be like call of duty I think everyone should refuse, can’t go to war with no army can you
No, but you can get invaded and absolutely wiped out without one
This is hilarious. In what world would a country, without provocation just invade the UK or wipe out literally millions of civilians of many different nationalities? In what world? This hypothetical bullshit to justify militarisation is absolutely insane. We live in the modern world.
The fear around getting rid of a military in the modern world is proof that it’s fear that leads to war more than anything else.
I mean, that’s just naive. Incredibly naive when a country that lacked the military power to protect itself is being invaded right now
I just deleted my post because I cba to get involved in long back and forths on this but I will say that a) demilitarisation isn’t naive and b) you’re massively oversimplifying a political situation that has led to that conflict. Massively.
I don’t blame you for backing out of that one. Had Ukraine had the military power to protect itself then this war wouldn’t be happening.
Military deterrents are the best way to keep peace in the current world.
Because fear drives men to war.
Military deterrents are only the best way in a world in which you believe that everyone wants to blow you up.
Again, you’re oversimplifying what happened with Ukraine and applying it to the UK.
Demilitarisation should be a global endeavour. That’s a better way to secure peace. For centuries militaries have caused horrors around the world. Drones and nukes are not going to give us peace "Agree to disagree | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morning shag
I think it’s a bad idea. You’d have a load of trigger happy arnie wannabes jumping on it thinking it’d be like call of duty I think everyone should refuse, can’t go to war with no army can you
No, but you can get invaded and absolutely wiped out without one
This is hilarious. In what world would a country, without provocation just invade the UK or wipe out literally millions of civilians of many different nationalities? In what world? This hypothetical bullshit to justify militarisation is absolutely insane. We live in the modern world.
The fear around getting rid of a military in the modern world is proof that it’s fear that leads to war more than anything else.
I mean, that’s just naive. Incredibly naive when a country that lacked the military power to protect itself is being invaded right now
I just deleted my post because I cba to get involved in long back and forths on this but I will say that a) demilitarisation isn’t naive and b) you’re massively oversimplifying a political situation that has led to that conflict. Massively.
Ukraine removed its nuclear weapons and downsized its military.
Got invaded by Russia and is now pretty well fucked.
It’s not complicated unless you want it to be.
No it is complicated because the situation in Ukraine is one that has come from a political conflict and it’s a complicated one that didn’t spring up out of nowhere, randomly, between the two. (That isn’t me giving an opinion on it btw). "It really isn’t complicated. Ukraine gave up its nukes and reduced its conventional military. Years later, the country made a choice to align itself towards western democracies. Russia saw that as a threat and, because Ukraine had a weak military, invaded. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morning shag
I think it’s a bad idea. You’d have a load of trigger happy arnie wannabes jumping on it thinking it’d be like call of duty I think everyone should refuse, can’t go to war with no army can you
No, but you can get invaded and absolutely wiped out without one
This is hilarious. In what world would a country, without provocation just invade the UK or wipe out literally millions of civilians of many different nationalities? In what world? This hypothetical bullshit to justify militarisation is absolutely insane. We live in the modern world.
The fear around getting rid of a military in the modern world is proof that it’s fear that leads to war more than anything else.
I mean, that’s just naive. Incredibly naive when a country that lacked the military power to protect itself is being invaded right now
I just deleted my post because I cba to get involved in long back and forths on this but I will say that a) demilitarisation isn’t naive and b) you’re massively oversimplifying a political situation that has led to that conflict. Massively.
Ukraine removed its nuclear weapons and downsized its military.
Got invaded by Russia and is now pretty well fucked.
It’s not complicated unless you want it to be.
No it is complicated because the situation in Ukraine is one that has come from a political conflict and it’s a complicated one that didn’t spring up out of nowhere, randomly, between the two. (That isn’t me giving an opinion on it btw).
It really isn’t complicated.
Ukraine gave up its nukes and reduced its conventional military. Years later, the country made a choice to align itself towards western democracies. Russia saw that as a threat and, because Ukraine had a weak military, invaded."
Yes. That’s it. There’s nothing else to the conflict. Not a single thing. Come on man we all know that it’s not as simple as that we’ve been following it?
Side note: you acknowledge that fear is major factor to what causes war. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morning shag
I think it’s a bad idea. You’d have a load of trigger happy arnie wannabes jumping on it thinking it’d be like call of duty I think everyone should refuse, can’t go to war with no army can you
No, but you can get invaded and absolutely wiped out without one
This is hilarious. In what world would a country, without provocation just invade the UK or wipe out literally millions of civilians of many different nationalities? In what world? This hypothetical bullshit to justify militarisation is absolutely insane. We live in the modern world.
The fear around getting rid of a military in the modern world is proof that it’s fear that leads to war more than anything else.
I mean, that’s just naive. Incredibly naive when a country that lacked the military power to protect itself is being invaded right now
I just deleted my post because I cba to get involved in long back and forths on this but I will say that a) demilitarisation isn’t naive and b) you’re massively oversimplifying a political situation that has led to that conflict. Massively.
Ukraine removed its nuclear weapons and downsized its military.
Got invaded by Russia and is now pretty well fucked.
It’s not complicated unless you want it to be.
No it is complicated because the situation in Ukraine is one that has come from a political conflict and it’s a complicated one that didn’t spring up out of nowhere, randomly, between the two. (That isn’t me giving an opinion on it btw).
It really isn’t complicated.
Ukraine gave up its nukes and reduced its conventional military. Years later, the country made a choice to align itself towards western democracies. Russia saw that as a threat and, because Ukraine had a weak military, invaded."I don’t think you understand. If Ukraine and the west just put all their weapons down, Iran and Russia and North Korea and the taliban would do the same and we’d all cuddle It’s that simple | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don’t think you understand. If Ukraine and the west just put all their weapons down, Iran and Russia and North Korea and the taliban would do the same and we’d all cuddle It’s that simple " Silly me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Yes. That’s it. There’s nothing else to the conflict. Not a single thing. Come on man we all know that it’s not as simple as that we’ve been following it?
Side note: you acknowledge that fear is major factor to what causes war. "It really is as simple as that. Do you think Russia would have invaded Ukraine if they had retained their nuclear weapons and a larger army? Or are you sticking to your earlier position that, if Ukraine has got rid of all of its army, Russia wouldn’t have invaded? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh man Kim Jon is a cuddle monster "He does look like he could give really good hugs. Putin would have to hug from 20 feet away. Sunak wouldn’t give a hug and Trump looks like he’d try to bear-hug/crush you to prove how macho he is (rapist that he is). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it would be a great idea to unleash the menopausal midlifers on any threat to anyone anywhere. It would solve many world issues. It’s the midlife (male) menopausers who are the ones cheering for a ‘citizens army’ as far as I can see. DILFs army Charging into battle in their convertibles, wearing their bootcut jeans and slip ons." Tennis rackets at the ready. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morning shag
I think it’s a bad idea. You’d have a load of trigger happy arnie wannabes jumping on it thinking it’d be like call of duty I think everyone should refuse, can’t go to war with no army can you
No, but you can get invaded and absolutely wiped out without one
This is hilarious. In what world would a country, without provocation just invade the UK or wipe out literally millions of civilians of many different nationalities? In what world? This hypothetical bullshit to justify militarisation is absolutely insane. We live in the modern world.
The fear around getting rid of a military in the modern world is proof that it’s fear that leads to war more than anything else.
I mean, that’s just naive. Incredibly naive when a country that lacked the military power to protect itself is being invaded right now
I just deleted my post because I cba to get involved in long back and forths on this but I will say that a) demilitarisation isn’t naive and b) you’re massively oversimplifying a political situation that has led to that conflict. Massively.
Ukraine removed its nuclear weapons and downsized its military.
Got invaded by Russia and is now pretty well fucked.
It’s not complicated unless you want it to be.
No it is complicated because the situation in Ukraine is one that has come from a political conflict and it’s a complicated one that didn’t spring up out of nowhere, randomly, between the two. (That isn’t me giving an opinion on it btw).
It really isn’t complicated.
Ukraine gave up its nukes and reduced its conventional military. Years later, the country made a choice to align itself towards western democracies. Russia saw that as a threat and, because Ukraine had a weak military, invaded.
Yes. That’s it. There’s nothing else to the conflict. Not a single thing. Come on man we all know that it’s not as simple as that we’ve been following it?
Side note: you acknowledge that fear is major factor to what causes war. "No, there is also the fact that Putin has always considered Ukraine to be part of Russia. As far as I’m aware he doesn’t think that about the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No, there is also the fact that Putin has always considered Ukraine to be part of Russia. As far as I’m aware he doesn’t think that about the UK." He has threatened the UK with nuclear annihilation. That might suggest he’s may not want to be bestest best friends with us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Yes. That’s it. There’s nothing else to the conflict. Not a single thing. Come on man we all know that it’s not as simple as that we’ve been following it?
Side note: you acknowledge that fear is major factor to what causes war.
It really is as simple as that.
Do you think Russia would have invaded Ukraine if they had retained their nuclear weapons and a larger army?
Or are you sticking to your earlier position that, if Ukraine has got rid of all of its army, Russia wouldn’t have invaded?"I want you to find in this thread where I said that.
I said that wg was oversimplifying a conflict and applying it to a different country and situation?
The conflict in Ukraine is based on so many factors, one of which ofc is their demilitarisation, but to pretend that that’s the only reason this conflict exists is oversimplifying or misunderstanding it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s start by training the offspring of our politicians, bankers, millionaires and the output of Eaton etc…the. Then see how quick the army budget, pay and conditions improve " Like some of the male Royals do? And Anne! "Privates, Sunak, Rees-Mogg Kahn, Starmer, Truss, Sturgeon, Johnson Jnrs (loads of 'em) etc, get your scruffy arses on the parade square right now. Stop squealing, Mummy and Daddy carry no weight here" "Some of them dodge the taxman: you'll have to learn how to dodge bullets...)" Read this one aloud with your best Windsor Davis voice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d be up for the training if it came to it. Damn fucking right I’d defend my family until my last breath. Some of the comments on here are unbelievable. Well said!! No room for shitebags in this country." Unfortunately there are so bloody many now! Entitled sheep who think the world owes them everything... Thankfully the vast majority of us are starting to get to the point when enough is enough. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
