AIBU to not want to go to war

[TemporaryPosition]

It's expensive and it hurts and it helps nothing, it just puts innocent sons, brothers, fathers, uncles and friends through the meat grinder. The only people who benefit are those who make a fortune from selling weapons and are granted contracts for reconstruction.

Haven't we learnt anything? What happened to "never again".

AIBU to really really really not want to be involved in any war?

Cultural identity. Not national. You can be culturally Welsh and live anywhere, with any nationality please don’t tell me what I mean. I meant what I said.

Agree with all of this.

Unfortunately even regulation can’t entirely help - look at Besos’ latest dictat at the WP. Only op eds that support personal liberties and the free market are allowed. It’s a back door way to restrict criticism of the current administration - and would not fall under any kind of regulation.

Vance’s latest comments -He plays down British & French peacekeeping troops as “20k troops from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years”.

Were they not in Afghanistan supporting the US?

I would have had every reason to agree with this argument until the "regulators" censored any material which challenged the view that humans can't change sex and that women's rights are threatened by this insistence

He does conveniently forget things like this. Given that he served in Iraq himself it's pretty shocking. But all part of the current game playing.

Regulations ought to be confined to insisting that things are factual and can be backed up by evidence. That rules out disinformation without effecting gender critical material (would rule out tra material though...)

Regulation of what is factual would have upheld your right to say those things. Only that which it materially untrue should be subject to censorship. Just look at what the old style tabloids used to get away with. You can still hold very strong opinions, you just can't claim that X has happened or £X has been spent on something when it is demonstrably false.

Any fact that can be backed up, however unpalatable it is deemed, it should not be censored.

This is what I mean when I say people are purposely trying to confuse the freedom of speech with freedom to misinform the electorate.

They ought to. But when the people who provide the evidence are captured by an ideaology, this is not what happens.

"Regulation of what is factual would have upheld your right to say those things."

In practice this has failed spectacularly in the UK in recent years. When even those whose job it is to safeguard against this are captured and fail to do so, which they have - there is nowhere to go. When those who are tasked to regulate the regulators have been found unable to do this, where does that leave us?

When those who are tasked to regulate the regulators have been found unable to do this, where does that leave us?

Our democratically elected government regulate the regulators. When they've been found unable to do this we use our democratic powers to remove them.

As is happening right now.

It's not perfect, but it's more perfect than just throwing our hands in the air and leaving it all to a small group of unelected tech bros and oligarchs.

If the American public is so tired of war then why is Trump sabre-rattling at Greenland, Canada and Panama? And why are MAGA cheering him on?

This isn't just about not wanting to be involved though, is it? The least Trump could do is maintaining sanctions on the Russians. That wouldn't really cost you anything personally, would it? Any economic consequences would be far less than those tariff anyway. But no, the White House has ordered officials to look at relaxing sanctions. Why? Please do tell me who gains from doing this?

And you really have no idea what it's like to have a genocidal dictator on your doorstep, you've no idea what it's like to face an existential threat. If you'd like to find out, ask a Canadian. Though I hear that they're all boycotting Florida at the moment...

Not as a soldier but as a military journalist - so he knows full well what he's saying and the offence he's giving.

"Our democratically elected government regulate the regulators. When they've been found unable to do this we use our democratic powers to remove them."

How can the electorate know that this is happening when they regulate the information the electorate have access to? That people say shit like this with a straight face is a serious indictment to the quality of our democracy

What alternative do you propose?

As they say, "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others...”

More I read of OP’s posts, more it sounds like ChatGBT.

I didn't know till today that had been his role. I had read he'd served in Iraq and thought that meant active combat, and I was prepared to respect him having done that, if nothing else. Should have known! 🙄

Nah, it's not ChatGPT, this is a True Believer, although I admit I'm curious why he's posted on Mumsnet.

He does not appear to be a regular poster. His writing style is textbook male. Just for fun I'd guess age 30-55 with a 2:1 or 2:2 degree from a lower-tier university. His posts are peppered with terms that are unusual outside certain quite niche corners of the internet, so he either spends a lot of time online drinking the kool aid or he actually is the kool aid. Probably the former.

Men with his political interests and views do not generally hold the opinions of middle aged women in particularly high regard, so why post here?

What has he learnt? What did he hope to learn?

Curious.

Free speech is my proposal.

I am female. How many men do you know who were radicalised by the terf wars?

Gosh, the snobs are up early today...
A lower-tier university?
I wonder how one defines such a place. Presumably, by assuming it's not a university that self-selected to create a ridiculous set of organisations (yes, that's what the Russell Group did) that some think is the epitome of education, yet are Emperor's new clothes.
"The Russell Group is a self-selected association of twenty-four public research universities in the United Kingdom. The group is headquartered in Cambridge and was established in 1994 to represent its members' interests, principally to government and Parliament. It was incorporated in 2007.[3] Its members are often perceived as being the UK's best universities, but this has been disputed..."

At a RG university, one is taught how to reference the correct source.

It was a snobby comment, but the OP is giving fringe sociology diploma vibes, so it’s probably accurate.

That's the only 'difference'? Their selling point? Because it's entirely pointless!
Then again, I'm poorly this am, so may be missing the joke...!

I was pointing out that the link you provided was not the source for the quote you used. ‘Twas just a little joke, not meant to upset or offend, so I’m sorry if it did.

Hope you feel better soon.

Yes, I lazily just googled RG. I can't stand the faux snobbery about them. Universities are universities!
No offence taken at all, and def not upset! It made me laugh because they will probably use it as a marketing tool; come to a Russel Group university - we teach you to reference properly!

I disagree on ‘unis are unis’ but I do think that the brightest don’t always go to the best unis - cost / ‘they’re not for the likes of me’ play a huge part in that.

Anyway, this thread is already so far off course I’ll leave you to your recovery!