MonoGreenFanBoy t1_j9sfd0l wrote
Hes a pompous prat but he's steadfast defence of Ukraine when everyone else was still reluctant is respectable. You can both dislike a man on his bad decisions and respect the good ones he makes
Troubleshooter11 t1_j9smnwg wrote
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. And his stance on the Ukrainian war was right in my eyes.
criminal_cabbage t1_j9svwj2 wrote
Despite the fact he decimated the UKs armed forces, cut tank order and jet orders meaning we don't have any equipment to send to Ukraine.
The guy is a self serving charlatan that has tied himself to this conflict only for the betterment of himself.
He blamed the initial invasion of Crimea in 2014 on the European Union, not Russia. It suited him to blame the EU then so he did
He is also circling the leadership in his party in case he fancies another go. If he pressures the PM to do something stupid and it blows up in his face, that is his ideal situation
FragrantKnobCheese t1_j9t84it wrote
> Despite the fact he decimated the UKs armed forces, cut tank order and jet orders meaning we don't have any equipment to send to Ukraine.
Most of that happened before he was PM. Still his party though.
PanzerKomadant t1_j9u2l1a wrote
And he also wants to be NATO chief now apparently.
FarawayFairways t1_j9vz6zn wrote
> And he also wants to be NATO chief now apparently.
Because of his organisational skills, studious attention to detail, subtle diplomatic nuances, commitment to multi-national alliances, deep military background and experience, uncorruptible track record of refusing Russian finance, and his discipline in handling sensitive documentation that he doesn't leave lying around on the sofa of the Downing Street flat
PanzerKomadant t1_j9w1kxu wrote
At first I was like “your not serious are you?” And as I kept on reading asking your comment I started to chuckle.
AMeasuredBerserker t1_j9t1ef0 wrote
He decimated the UK armed forces? Boy is it obvious how young some of these commenters are.
Iraq war?
All the equipment that has already been sent? Doesn't count?
Can you honestly not separate your hatred for someone, even when what they are doing is right? You don't have to like him but you have to recognise correct decisions when they are made.
nonrandomusername17 t1_j9t4e4j wrote
> He decimated the UK armed forces?
Decimate comes from latin, to kill every tenth man.
9500/82000 = 11.6%
So yes, Boris did decimate the military.
mayasky76 t1_j9u8vna wrote
I..... I think I love you.
Nothing gets my goat more than stupid people implying decimation means complete destruction of something.
You still have 90% of your army after it's been decimated FFS
M17CH t1_j9uqva1 wrote
In modern usage it has a different meaning. I wonder if you subscribe to this same thought for the phrase "well-regulated."
Also let's not act like you aren't saying this because you saw the TIL from a couple days ago.
Intruder313 t1_j9wbvpp wrote
When people use 'decimate' incorrectly I educate them.
M17CH t1_j9wfn5c wrote
They aren't using it incorrectly. It has taken on a new meaning in the modern world. The historical definition is not the "correct" way to use it.
I_Am_NOT_The_Titan t1_j9x7wg2 wrote
🤓
mayasky76 t1_j9urjj4 wrote
Wtf are you talking about....
You think I.... a 47yr old British person with a BBC accent you wouldn't belive, someone who actually had Latin lessons in school..... need a reddit TIL to learn the meaning of the word decimate.
Sigh.... dei gratia sum quod sum eh!
We also know what well regulated means. We have a dictionary over here.
Millenniauld t1_j9waf3f wrote
Id est quod est, people like him will always think that education means "saw a meme on reddit" because it's the only way they know anything.
M17CH t1_j9uxuqr wrote
>need a reddit TIL to learn the meaning of the word decimate.
Yes. Historical meaning btw, not current.
>Sigh.... dei gratia sum quod sum eh!
Posting a phrase in Latin anonymously behind a screen is proof of absolutely nothing.
>We also know what well regulated means. We have a dictionary over here.
So then you would acknowledge that "well-regulated" in the historical sense is not prescribing heavy restrictions.
Either way, you're purposely using a long out of favour definition for a "gotcha" moment.
mayasky76 t1_j9v3zq1 wrote
Lol. Well u/M17CH I'm sure you have me there.... posting anonymously on reddit . What sort of cunt does that eh!
M17CH t1_j9v8oog wrote
It's not about being anonymous, that's the standard.
It's about thinking that posting a single phrase that you could have simply googled is proof at all of your ability to read, write, or speak Latin.
But you already know that. You're just trying to avoid it.
[deleted] t1_j9vcv3a wrote
[removed]
M17CH t1_j9wysa4 wrote
>I see you have been googling English then you clever clever bastard... no let me guess you've been writing in esperanto and using Google translate for English.... naughty naughty
Correct.
>Some. People. Still .know Latin you muppet
Yes of course. Also please be nice.
>I did my amo, amas, amat at school and you probably know some like E plurubus unum. Or deus ex machina. There are commonly known Latin phrases and I can almost be certain that everyone i went to school with know dei gratia sum quod sum as it was said every frigging day in assembly.
I don't know any Latin.
>I even know a bit of Welsh too and some mandarin... how is that even possible
Good question.
>Jesus, you do know that people out there in the world know different stuff from you?
Yes.
I just find it a funny coincidence that there are so many experts on the origins and historical definition of the word "decimate" mere days after a popular post about just that word. If you had that in your data banks before then, then I am happy for you. It is still weirdly elitist and not even really all that accurate to consider that historical definition of "decimate" as the correct usage in the modern day. It isn't used that way anymore. It has taken on a new meaning. To say someone is incorrect for using it another way is not really true.
>stupid people implying decimation means complete destruction of something
People are not stupid for using the more recent and culturally accurate definition of the word. Please be nicer.
FatherSlippyfist t1_j9uplfs wrote
The meaning of words is given by usage. Lots of us know the origin of decimate, but it doesn't matter because that's not what it means anymore. If you look in Oxford, it says "kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage or part of".
It list the one in ten definition as "historical".
mayasky76 t1_j9uqwfk wrote
When you go to the doctor for an appendectomy you'd better hope some cunt hasn't been using it as a slang term for castration...
Also.. literally cannot mean exactly the opposite of figuratively which is how it gets commonly used.... thats not changing the meaning, its getting it fucking wrong
2+2 = Geoff hurst in the 1966 world cup kinda wrong.
Words HAVE to have a defined meaning or you just end up at green wallaby .
Get just the first thing that will still!
M17CH t1_j9ur0ug wrote
That's not really how decimate is used in modern language, but go off though.
AMeasuredBerserker t1_j9t5smf wrote
Conviently ignoring the more up-to-date and modern equipment that has been received and changes post Ukraine? Interesting view you have there.
And I didn't realise we were going to go back to the original Latin meaning of the word when the english version is far more common.
How to twist an argument 101.
Groxy_ t1_j9tgb8g wrote
That's an English definition of decimate too... They literally just used the word correctly and you're spouting shit about them twisting the argument, while twisting the argument.
How to twist an argument 101, for real.
AMeasuredBerserker t1_j9trknv wrote
Are you honestly being for real? If someone says they are decimated or something is decimated, do they mean "I've lost 1/10?" In the traditional Latin meaning of the word?
Most people dont even know it is Latin let alone that it means 1/10!
This is twisting the argument. And it's only a reflection of absolute numbers! Not if they are using better equipment etc, like is mentioned in the goddam article alot of the money is going to Trident renewal which perhaps even more important than having a couple thousand rifles!
Want to twist and move the goalposts again?
Card_Zero t1_j9tt5l8 wrote
This argument about words is distracting from the interesting point about whether or not Boris decreed military cutbacks (and if so, why). However, Wiktionary has both uses:
> (loosely) To devastate
> (proscribed) To reduce to one-tenth
and all the quotations in the latter case include some extra words like "to one-tenth" to make sure it's understood literally. In summary: whatever.
AMeasuredBerserker t1_j9tv0jo wrote
I can quite literally google the word and find this:
>decimate
>
>/ˈdɛsɪmeɪt/
>
>Learn to pronounce
>
>verb
>
>past tense: decimated; past participle: decimated
​
- ​
>kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of.
>
>"the inhabitants of the country had been decimated"
>
>2.
>
>HISTORICAL
>
>kill one in every ten of (a group of people, originally a mutinous Roman legion) as a punishment for the whole group.
>
>"the man who is to determine whether it be necessary to decimate a large body of mutineers"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/decimate
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decimated
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/decimate
Im interested why you put the one source, Wikitionary, the tried and tested! as the only example above all others.
But as you so eloquently put it, because it doesn't validate your point, "Whatever" you will twist it any which way to make you right.
Card_Zero t1_j9u0jyb wrote
I'm not the same person you were talking to previously, I don't have to be right to prove any point, and in fact I acknowledge I'm wrong about everything most of the time. I just happen to like Wiktionary, it's my go-to.
I don't know about Cambridge Dictionary, but Merriam-Webster have a page of notes about this particular "problem word". Dictionary.com acknowledge that the "devastate" usage has been criticized. My feeling is that the one-in-ten usage (probably popular in Victorian times when every user of long words knew Latin) has had an upsurge in popularity over the last decade or so due to people on the internet being anal about it.
AMeasuredBerserker t1_j9u1u1n wrote
Fair enough, I'll dial down the criticism a little, but it really did feel like you were looking for a reason that it mean 1/10th rather than using the material immediately confronted with if you googled said word. Respected dictionaries all specific state that the "1/10" meaning is historic.
I know my friends wouldn't know decimate is 1/10 and would roll my eyes if I explained its historic useage vs what everyone uses it for, but you are probably right with your last point.
[deleted] t1_j9u7353 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j9tac65 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9t28zr wrote
[removed]
Mandurang76 t1_j9tesau wrote
In Iraq the Americans had a nickname for the British Army: "The borrowers".
AMeasuredBerserker t1_j9ts4xo wrote
Iraq was 20 years ago! And its the whole point I'm making! UK armed forces have only gotten incrementally better since then, anyone who works in defence knows this.
Numbers aren't everything, something Ukraine is arguably prooving?
[deleted] t1_j9sw18v wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j9sxi6y wrote
[deleted]
custard_doughnuts t1_j9sqyl8 wrote
Agreed.
He's still a lying, corrupt scumbag who only looks out for himself (see Brexit)
phigo50 t1_j9stw3l wrote
One of the bad ones presumably being to blame the EU for Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea. Yes, he's right but Ukraine is "the thing that gives him opportunities to run his mouth" at the moment, it's all too easy to stand on the sidelines and shout about what the UK needs to do when he has no responsibility or capability to actually deliver it.
[deleted] t1_j9sv8ju wrote
[removed]
lollypatrolly t1_j9tbh7l wrote
> There is an actual reason why nations have been hesitant to give Ukraine fighter jets.
The actual reason is lack of political will. His suggestion is directly designed to deal with this, by taking initiative and paving the way for timid nations (the US, Germany) to follow.
>and even then it's not necessarily clear they would be the determining factor in making gains
There is no single weapon or system that will win a war by itself, that's not how war works. Modern fighter jets will give Ukraine capabilities that they didn't have before though, providing a sizeable advantage in both air defense and giving them the option of using western stand-off munitions.
>rather than a provocation that takes the war to the next level.
This is pure Russian propaganda. There is no possible "next level", Russia is already trying as hard as it can to win the war.
[deleted] t1_j9tc1ls wrote
[removed]
lollypatrolly t1_j9td5qm wrote
>while you say that Russia isn't capable of causing even more destruction in the region.
Their military is fully committed, there's nothing else they can do.
Notice that Ukraine is asking for all these things and are not worrying about "escalation". Strange, huh?
These delusional Putin propagandists whinging about "escalation" are on the other hand completely safe.
[deleted] t1_j9tdn3t wrote
[removed]
texasipguru t1_j9tpg91 wrote
Nukes
rm-rd t1_j9syg5y wrote
IMO the most escalatory thing that can happen is the war drags on, without giving Putin an excuse to back out.
The evil NATO jets (as Russia will probably call them) could both shorten the war (thus fewer lives lost on both sides) and give Putin a scapegoat for his loss.
[deleted] t1_j9syw9k wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9taq6h wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9tb9of wrote
[removed]
lollypatrolly t1_j9tcobz wrote
> They end up being used to push the war into Russia forcing a much more desperate defensive Russian escalation.
Pushing the war into Russia is a purely good thing, Ukraine needs to strike military assets on the Russian side in order to win the war. It's unambiguously good and there are no downsides.
>The ability to project into Russia increases Russia's willingness to retaliate openly or covertly against the nation giving the jet-- potentially forcing the escalation to full world war.
Russia lacks the capability to "retaliate", and they lack the casus belli as well. There is zero chance they do anything to the west no matter what type of weapon Ukraine is given. And they're already doing everything they possibly can to Ukraine, there's no further step in the escalation ladder.
>and I'm sure the world's top diplomats can't compare to your genius
The world's top diplomats and military leaders all agree with me on this.
>but there's some pretty obvious ways that this could create blowback
No, there's no possibility of weapon deliveries to Ukraine creating "blowback" from Russia. The only type of blowback you might see is in domestic politics, where you might lose the votes of fearful idiot voters. And even then that might only happen in a select few countries, considering citizens of most western nations overwhelmingly support the cause.
[deleted] t1_j9tdcqt wrote
[removed]
MrPloppyHead t1_j9syt41 wrote
Exactly
CraftyArmitage t1_j9slcgd wrote
You absolutely can
[deleted] t1_j9slnt9 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9y8lbp wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9ypscy wrote
[removed]
NotAPreppie t1_j9t8zcy wrote
I doubt he'd advocate for sending fighter jets if he were still PM.
Being a spectator gives you much greater freedom to advocate for various things.
Also, he's bucking for NATO leadership role.
swissthrow1 t1_j9tqkxw wrote
What about his dodgy dealings with russians without any officials present?
TaigTyke t1_j9t05w6 wrote
He is like Churchill, TBF. A corrupt warhawk.
Unfortunately, sometimes that is exactly who you need.
Glivcth t1_j9vy5a0 wrote
Are u serious do you want a world war lmao
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments