"Hero" soldiers.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

Cú Giobach

smash wrote: »

Why do you insist on confusing freedom fighters of the past with the ilk of today's soldiers who basically just invade upon command?

What about the soldiers defending against the commanded invasions? Are they not freedom fighters of today?

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

Shenshen

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Not the (arguably) most famous vegetarian in modern military history I hope.

You mean the one who actually wasn't?
It's funny how he wasn't either of the two things usually brought out in every debatte : vegetarian and atheist.

Donnielighto

feeney92 wrote: »

You have those decisions because of soldiers!! What about WW1 and 2 those lads in the allies trained purely in the art of killing do you think they had issues?

the flip side is we wouldnt have had them without soldiers too. soldiers are too often a pox on humanity

arybvtcw0eolkf

curlzy wrote: »

Every soldier is one of those "type of soldiers" to the opposite side. I see them all as murderers or wannabe murderers myself.

Look at what THIS BASTARD done to a man.. The soldier in question has 28yrs service ~ murdering swine :mad:

Probably used his army training too, makes me sick.

Cú Giobach

Shenshen wrote: »

You mean the one who actually wasn't?
It's funny how he wasn't either of the two things usually brought out in every debatte : vegetarian and atheist.

There is actually a debate about it, but I can't see why his secretary Traudl Junge (who was close to the man and him to her) could get something so wrong.
Link

Such things included his modest appetite, and the way he ate only side dishes - always avoiding meat.

His Austrian cook Kruemel believed that life without meat was not worth living, and would often try to sneak a little animal broth or fat into the meal.

"Mostly the Fuehrer would notice the attempt at deception, would get very annoyed and then get tummy ache. At the end he would only let Kruemel cook him clear soup and mashed potato."

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

kneemos

Ezequiel Many Skyjacker wrote: »

Look at what THIS BASTARD done to a man.. The soldier in question has 28yrs service ~ murdering swine :mad:

Probably used his army training too, makes me sick.

cpr hardly warrents a medal.Well done to him though.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

Donnielighto

feeney92 wrote: »

Ok so every rebel in Syria is a moron for fighting an oppressive regime? Its soldiers who gave you a right to develop these opinions of yours, get an education and have ambition. Are the men of 1916 murderers for developing a Home we call the Republic?

violence should not be a first answer and as such the 1916 leaders in particular and those that followed were murderers yes, Ireland was on a peaceful path to home rule and their actions lead to the war of independence, the civil war, partition and more than likely the level of troubles in the north.

as for syria or other issues like that such as ww1 / ww2 the defending nations i have no problem with, invading nations throughout history though i do. peacekeepers on a tight leash are sometimes required but outside influence should never be used to resolve a power struggle in either favour but to bring about a peace where all sides can come together. I have to commend the Irish army in this regard, no offensive operations and plenty of protection offered to civilians.

A question for the more pro military figures in this thread, when do orders become too much, too inhumane? Would you ever follow orders that went beyond the limits of the geneva convention?

Tea drinker

davetherave wrote: »

What a ridiculous generalisation.
So only stupid people join the military? When are you enlisting then?

He's joining the 1st Div Charirbone Rangers.

Donnielighto

feeney92 wrote: »

Ah your living in fairy land were theres world peace

that post was edited before i saw your response

arybvtcw0eolkf

Donnielighto wrote: »

soldiers are too often a pox on humanity

Seriously is there a need for this?.

smash

feeney92 wrote: »

Saving a mans life doesnt earn a medal? What does then?

Do doctors and nurses get medals?

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

Cú Giobach

smash wrote: »

Do doctors and nurses get medals?

Not getting them doesn't mean they don't deserve them.

arybvtcw0eolkf

feeney92 wrote: »

Saving a mans life doesnt earn a medal? What does then?

Well in fairness medals don't put bread on the table.

I don't know a single serving soldier who'd give a rats ass about another medal.

As for the OP's topic, I think 'Hero' is a term used too lightly by the media.

I've no idea what a hero is, I've met some brave men and women in my time, but "hero" ~ I honestly don't know that I've met more than one or too.

Donnielighto

Ezequiel Many Skyjacker wrote: »

Seriously is there a need for this?.

when has an invading army been in the right, i dont mean during ongoing conflicts btw. proper peacekeeping i do not include in this btw

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

kneemos

feeney92 wrote: »

Saving a mans life doesnt earn a medal? What does then?

Saving a mans life certainly does no question.cpr is basic first aid he just happened to be there.(luckily)

Temptamperu

ScumLord wrote: »

Because they took the job in the knowledge they may well lose a limb or their lifes. Risking your life for others "Corporations" sort of automatically makes you a hero.

FYP

arybvtcw0eolkf

Donnielighto wrote: »

when has an invading army been in the right, i dont mean during ongoing conflicts btw. proper peacekeeping i do not include in this btw

Try that again please?.

Cú Giobach

Donnielighto wrote: »

when has an invading army been in the right, i dont mean during ongoing conflicts btw. proper peacekeeping i do not include in this btw

Well the invasion of Germany in the 1940's had quite a positive outcome for the people of Europe and the world as a whole.

Edit, OK I missed the bit about "ongoing conflicts".

arybvtcw0eolkf

kneemos wrote: »

Saving a mans life certainly does no question.cpr is basic first aid he just happened to be there.(luckily)

The post was in reply to Curlzy who said, and I quote;

I see them all as murderers or wannabe murderers myself.

So clearly they're not all murderers, right Curlzy?.

Anyway I'm not going to invest too much time or effort in this thread.

If anyone has a genuine question about soldiers PM me, as regards the topic ~ PM someone else because I don't know too much about hero's, sorry.

smash

feeney92 wrote: »

he's not a doctor? Hes a basic soldier.

So it's conditional now?

Donnielighto

feeney92 wrote: »

So you support the Taliban?

This is coming from the guy who was accusing otheres of acting like politians by twisting words? That is verging on the hypocritical.

No I don't support the Taliban, neither do I support the invasion of a seperately governed area by forces from outside of it. I did, regarding defending nations say I had no problem with and if that was all the Taliban stood for that would be fine but it isn't so the heart of their agenda isn't just defending against some aggressor but is much more complicated and overwhelmingly against what I believe is right.

feeney92 wrote: »

Nobody ever truly knows until they are put in that situation. So as far as im concerned I cant say yes or know until ive experienced it. Theres some things you cant comment on until you have experienced them.

You aren't ruling it out so? That is a pretty dangerous route to go down, you have no set line in the sand? Nothing that you can rule out right now.

feeney92 wrote: »

As for your question,which unlike you I intend to answer.

You avoided answering one question I posed by giving some fob answer and completely ignored the other question asked.

Try to be a bit more measured dude in how you present your points, you are just alienating people. Just because some guys are being immature in the thread doesn't mean you should be.

opinionated3

Donnielighto wrote: »

feeney92 wrote: »

Ok so every rebel in Syria is a moron for fighting an oppressive regime? Its soldiers who gave you a right to develop these opinions of yours, get an education and have ambition. Are the men of 1916 murderers for developing a Home we call the Republic?

violence should not be a first answer and as such the 1916 leaders in particular and those that followed were murderers yes, Ireland was on a peaceful path to home rule and their actions lead to the war of independence, the civil war, partition and more than likely the level of troubles in the north.

as for syria or other issues like that such as ww1 / ww2 the defending nations i have no problem with, invading nations throughout history though i do. peacekeepers on a tight leash are sometimes required but outside influence should never be used to resolve a power struggle in either favour but to bring about a peace where all sides can come together. I have to commend the Irish army in this regard, no offensive operations and plenty of protection offered to civilians.

A question for the more pro military figures in this thread, when do orders become too much, too inhumane? Would you ever follow orders that went beyond the limits of the geneva convention?

Yeah I might....inthe hunt for Taliban/ other extremists etc.

Donnielighto

Ezequiel Many Skyjacker wrote: »

Try that again please?.

It is rare for a nation that starts a conflict and invades another's territory to be the ones who are morally in the right. To push the invading armies back beyond the point of invasion and move into the aggressors territory seems fair enough though. Sorry if that isn't the clearest, I've a shocking headache.

Donnielighto

opinionated3 wrote: »

Yeah I might....inthe hunt for Taliban/ other extremists etc.

Cheers, I don't agree with you but at least you answered.

Cú Giobach

Donnielighto wrote: »

You aren't ruling it out so? That is a pretty dangerous route to go down, you have no set line in the sand? Nothing that you can rule out right now

If you are a human being then neither could you, because nobody actually knows how they will react in a situation of war until they are there, nobody.

Pedant

feeney92 wrote: »

Ireland does not need defending right now, but they do need a force ready to defend if such a problem were to occur, its not as if you get notice when problems do occur! Its people like you who discredit soldiers that would be the first to complain that there are none if something were to happen

Read back on what I said. We live in an age of peace in Europe. We do not need an army larger than 1000 personnel, even then you're pushing it. We might need a bit of a navy and an airforce, but infantry? No. The police take the truly brave role of maintaining civil order, not soldiers. If you want to be brave and defend your homeland, join the police - but they get less respect than soldiers unfortunately. Bomb disposal and the like do not need to be conducted by the army, it can be done by a special Garda unit.

In the unlikely event of Ireland getting involved in a conflict more people will join the army, but there isn't any conflict now and one in the foreseeable future is very unlikely.

Those who join other European armies, especially the BA, expecting to get sent to Afghanistan are idiots and are not doing it to defend Britain, more so that they can see action. Britain is not under thread. They're bull****ting if they think it is, they're doing it for the thrill and to see the action, either that or they're brainwashed. They probably played too much COD when they were younger. Notice that most are only teenagers; young and highly impressionable.

Going to the likes of Afghanistan is political pinball and nothing else. If they think small Bedouin tribes are any threat to a nuclear power like Britain then they're idiots. They're mere pawns in a larger conflict that is less in the interest of defense than it is in the interest of gaining more power.

Donnielighto

Cú Giobach wrote: »

If you are a human being then neither could you, because nobody actually knows how they will react in a situation of war until they are there, nobody.

Pretty sure I could rule out killing unarmed kiddies, civilians that are no threat poisoning water supplies, using large nuclear weapons on populated areas, ethnic cleansing of any form. Exception to killing of anyone would be mercy killings, they are understandable.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Donnielighto wrote: »

It is rare for a nation that starts a conflict and invades another's territory to be the ones who are morally in the right. To push the invading armies back beyond the point of invasion and move into the aggressors territory seems fair enough though. Sorry if that isn't the clearest, I've a shocking headache.

Cool, headaches suck ass ~ I hope it doesn't last too long.

Tbh the question of the rights and wrongs of war isn't what this thread is about.

Needless to say as a soldier I'd rather I'm never sent to war or put in a situation where I'd have to take the life of another human being.

I do think its out of order to say that soldiers are a pox on humanity.

I hate war, but I don't blame soldiers on its horrors. I blame the Hitlers, Stalins, Bush & Blairs (to name but a few) for that.

I'd be surprised if there's a soldier alive who wants to be sent to invade another man's country.

Anyway, I think your comment was overly harsh and unwarrented.

Donnielighto

Ezequiel Many Skyjacker wrote: »

I do think its out of order to say that soldiers are a pox on humanity.

I hate war, but I don't blame soldiers on its horrors. I blame the Hitlers, Stalins, Bush & Blairs (to name but a few) for that.

I'd be surprised if there's a soldier alive who wants to be sent to invade another man's country.

Anyway, I think your comment was overly harsh and unwarrented.

Their actions and other acting through them can be though is what i meant, didn't put it across well though.

Cú Giobach

Donnielighto wrote: »

Pretty sure I could rule out killing unarmed kiddies, civilians that are no threat poisoning water supplies, using large nuclear weapons on populated areas, ethnic cleansing of any form. Exception to killing of anyone would be mercy killings, they are understandable.

How?
The people that end up doing these things are normal people just like you but in extraordinary situations, war makes them do it.
A situation of war is so far beyond a peacetime situation it literally changes people because when you are surrounded by death life becomes cheap, I doubt you are some special being and it would change you too and until you are there you have no idea how it will affect you. You will do what you think you need to do to survive and since winning and loosing can be a matter of life and death also possibly what you think you need to do to win.

I read the title as ""Hero" spiders" and thought it was gonna be about those ones that just won't go away no matter how many times you try to shoo them away and you have to kill them.

up for anything

feeney92 wrote: »

Sorry soldiers who do not want an ordinary boring life stuck behind a desk all day doing paperwork or worry about bailling out banks. The job has risks and it comes with great safety in a career.

feeney92 wrote: »

Yes I agree that most people would, which brings me back to my old point that it takes a better type of character, one with bravery and strength, to put their lives on the line for something and others wont because they are too afraid to die

feeney92 wrote: »

Soldiers dont sign up to kill, they sign up to defend teir countrys and to kill IF NECCESSARY, I know if it was between me and my mates or some scumbag who uses children as suicide bombers who Id choose

I always thought that most who people join the army as ordinary private soldiers do so because they aren't qualified for much else and it's a steady job/income. I doubt there are many in Ireland who joined up because they didn't want a boring desk job - I am sure the army is equally as boring, nor that they join up to put their lives on the line for 'something' unspecified. They join up because they get a chance to play with guns or learn a trade, if war doesn't intervene, or they feel some lack in themselves and would prefer their every waking moment monitored in case they go off the rails.

crazy cabbage

The term hero is relitive. I know i (as well as most irish people) would consider trevelyn is be a dick head. On the other hand i was talking to a friend the other day that was teaching history in England and he said that trevelyn is considered almost to be a national hero over there.

Donnielighto

Cú Giobach wrote: »

How?
The people that end up doing these things are normal people just like you but in extraordinary situations, war makes them do it.
A situation of war is so far beyond a peacetime situation it literally changes people because when you are surrounded by death life becomes cheap, I doubt you are some special being and it would change you too and until you are there you have no idea how it will affect you. You will do what you think you need to do to survive and since winning and loosing can be a matter of life and death also possibly what you think you need to do to win.

Not everyone is a war criminal in waiting. Your position there is an excuse used to justify actions that the public considers outrageous. A lot of people who carry out stuff like that aren't normal people like me as you put it. I wouldn't join the military unless Ireland was under attack or likely to be attacked. Some people just join the army to have a gun in their hand (one of my mates who is in the cadets) or use a weapon against other people (I guy I know who joined the BA after being turned down by the paras there). Some people are more predisposed to the acts I mentioned earlier and unfortunately those people seem to be more likely to join armed forces.

Some people join police forces for power trips, a minority but it's a factor, same with the armed forces.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Donnielighto wrote: »

A question for the more pro military figures in this thread, when do orders become too much, too inhumane? Would you ever follow orders that went beyond the limits of the geneva convention?

No

up for anything wrote: »

I always thought that most who people join the army as ordinary private soldiers do so because they aren't qualified for much else and it's a steady job/income. I doubt there are many in Ireland who joined up because they didn't want a boring desk job - I am sure the army is equally as boring, nor that they join up to put their lives on the line for 'something' unspecified. They join up because they get a chance to play with guns or learn a trade, if war doesn't intervene, or they feel some lack in themselves and would prefer their every waking moment monitored in case they go off the rails.

I actually take offence to your post. Do you have any experience of being a soldier? Anyone who joins up to "play with guns" generally does not make it past Recruit Training. Contrary to many peoples opinions, people join to defend Ireland if needed and also travel to other countries to help stop atrocities / genocide, thus coming to the aid of people a whole less fortunate than ourselves.

Have you experienced the riquors, stress, physical and mental hardship that go along with military training? Believe me, anyone who joins up just because they watched Platoon too many times does not last long. To say that..."people join the army as ordinary private soldiers do so because they aren't qualified for much else"... really pisses me off. Most people join in their late teens/ early twenties, most civvies at this age may also not be qualified for anything either. You are making my profession sound like a bunch of unintelligent wasters who are not fit to have any other job.

I know plenty of people in the DF who have good educational qualifications or a Masters in certain areas, others have their own businesses, others have previous trade papers etc.

kneemos

I thought once you joined the army you were in for a set period. Is it possible to leave if you don't like the training.

leggo

Apologies if this has been mentioned already, no energy to read through every post but this is worth mentioning:

The attitude that soldiers are heroes stems from the reaction of the American public to the Vietnam war, where soldiers were ultimately treated like **** upon returning home, which led to innumerable horrible consequences. Put it this way, imagine risking your life for the honour of your country (never mind the policies themselves that are decided by politicians), witnessing the horrors of war then being spat on by your fellow countrymen after all of it.

So the States public gradually realised this and shifted their attitude to ensure that the criticism of politicians was fair game, but not the soldiers enacting political policies...who have a job to do regardless of their own personal opinion. In a democracy, this is needed to ensure safety and stability. We elect officials to make these decisions, after all.

The British have since piggy-backed this attitude and applied it to their own soldiers, perhaps not understanding the reasons behind it. But, whether they do or not, the attitude is one I fully support.

Poccington

This thread makes my face hurt.

up for anything

benwavner wrote: »

I actually take offence to your post.

You are entitled to take offence and defend and I am entitled to my opinion.

benwavner wrote: »

I know plenty of people in the DF who have good educational qualifications or a Masters in certain areas, others have their own businesses, others have previous trade papers etc.

Are these people that you know ordinary squaddies now?

Cú Giobach

Donnielighto wrote: »

Not everyone is a war criminal in waiting. Your position there is an excuse used to justify actions that the public considers outrageous. A lot of people who carry out stuff like that aren't normal people like me as you put it. I wouldn't join the military unless Ireland was under attack or likely to be attacked. Some people just join the army to have a gun in their hand (one of my mates who is in the cadets) or use a weapon against other people (I guy I know who joined the BA after being turned down by the paras there). Some people are more predisposed to the acts I mentioned earlier and unfortunately those people seem to be more likely to join armed forces.

Some people join police forces for power trips, a minority but it's a factor, same with the armed forces.

With just from a quick glance on one of my bookshelves I can see, Berlin The Downfall, Stalingrad, The Battle for Spain, D-Day The Battle for Normandy all by Antony Beevor, Moscow 1941 by Roderic Braithwait, The Balkans by Misha Glenny, Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich by William Shirer, Pacific Crucible War at Sea in the Pacific, 1941-1942 by Ian W Toll, that's without going upstairs to my main bookshelf.
From 25 adult years of reading about war and conflict one thing is blindingly clear, it is ordinary people in extraordinary situations that lead to the excesses you mention.

In every book I mentioned above there is story after story of soldiers doing terrible things, things that they admit just like you they thought they could never have done prior to conflict breaking out, the very idea would have been repugnant to them, and very importantly the longer they are "in the field" the worse things get as death becomes the norm. So sorry but I will take the words of people who have been involved in war as the reality here, not someone who has never experienced it. You have noble ideals but sadly war tends to make such things obsolete, it's a horrible reality but a reality nonetheless.
Remember I am talking about war here, not the peacetime defence forces of a small and fairly quiet nation.

Poccington

up for anything wrote: »

Are these people that you know ordinary squaddies now?

The ones who I know are.

In the current unit I'm serving in, one of the lads is the proud owner of a Physics degree, another an Engineering one. In my former unit, 2 lads are in the middle of a Law degree, 2 more are certified personal trainers, plenty of others have good Leaving Cert's etc. there's Enlisted Personnel all over the Defence Forces who are educated, with qualifications and so on.

It may come as a shock to you, but being a down and out isn't a requirement for becoming a Private.

opinionated3

Pedant wrote: »

feeney92 wrote: »

Ireland does not need defending right now, but they do need a force ready to defend if such a problem were to occur, its not as if you get notice when problems do occur! Its people like you who discredit soldiers that would be the first to complain that there are none if something were to happen

Read back on what I said. We live in an age of peace in Europe. We do not need an army larger than 1000 personnel, even then you're pushing it. We might need a bit of a navy and an airforce, but infantry? No. The police take the truly brave role of maintaining civil order, not soldiers. If you want to be brave and defend your homeland, join the police - but they get less respect than soldiers unfortunately. Bomb disposal and the like do not need to be conducted by the army, it can be done by a special Garda unit.

In the unlikely event of Ireland getting involved in a conflict more people will join the army, but there isn't any conflict now and one in the foreseeable future is very unlikely.

Those who join other European armies, especially the BA, expecting to get sent to Afghanistan are idiots and are not doing it to defend Britain, more so that they can see action. Britain is not under thread. They're bull****ting if they think it is, they're doing it for the thrill and to see the action, either that or they're brainwashed. They probably played too much COD when they were younger. Notice that most are only teenagers; young and highly impressionable.

Going to the likes of Afghanistan is political pinball and nothing else. If they think small Bedouin tribes are any threat to a nuclear power like Britain then they're idiots. They're mere pawns in a larger conflict that is less in the interest of defense than it is in the interest of gaining more power.

Are there Bedouin tribes in Afghanistan?!!! Those it was those nutters the Taliban that the west was fighting??

Praetorian Saighdiuir

up for anything wrote: »

You are entitled to take offence and defend and I am entitled to my opinion.

Correct, you are entitled to your opinion. You said that most serving soldiers are not qualified to do anything else, so they join the army. What were you qualified as at 17/18?

What do you do for a living? Im sure I could belittle your profession with my opinion also.

up for anything wrote: »

Are these people that you know ordinary squaddies now?

Yes, a lot are still serving, some have done their time and have since left.