"Hero" soldiers.

NIMAN

benwavner wrote: »

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.



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

Go to University?

I remember seeing Fahrenheit 911 and how they target recruiting in the US. They go to shopping malls in really poor areas where youngsters have no education and hope of a job, and get those guys.

Compare that with how many politicians sons were serving. I think it was 1 in the entire House.

I would say there are many that join armies as they have no other outlook in terms of jobs or earning money.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

NIMAN wrote: »

Go to University?

I remember seeing Fahrenheit 911 and how they target recruiting in the US. They go to shopping malls in really poor areas where youngsters have no education and hope of a job, and get those guys.

Compare that with how many politicians sons were serving. I think it was 1 in the entire House.

I would say there are many that join armies as they have no other outlook in terms of jobs or earning money.

"Go to University"......exactly my point. At that age we all decide what we are going to do in the near future. Some people continue with their education and some people start work straight away. Implying that someone has no future prospects other than joining the army is ridiculous and is an appaulling opinion to have.

mattjack

http://www.google.ie/imgres?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&sa=N&biw=800&bih=485&tbm=isch&tbnid=lH21RXeqdmch9M:&imgrefurl=http://members.home.nl/iahhm/windsor_davies.htm&docid=S1dUrI6HzZRd6M&imgurl=http://members.home.nl/iahhm/images/4280.gif&w=321&h=241&ei=0pj8T8TQHoyAhQfz04GrBQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=420&vpy=149&dur=3&hovh=192&hovw=256&tx=111&ty=102&sig=101514873492788278823&page=1&tbnh=136&tbnw=188&start=0&ndsp=8&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0,i:76

Straighten up there , you horrible lot.

Border-Rat

ScumLord wrote: »

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

Who are British soldiers in Afghanistan risking their lives for? Sorry, but when was the last Taliban assault in England?

Fritzl Funderland

timmy O'Toole fell down a well theres a real hero

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

bwatson

feeney92 wrote: »

The soldiers had no say in that matter, they are fighting for each other over there. Plain and simple

Not really true.

Why are we in Afghanistan?

...because it became a source of terrorism.
The Taliban gave safe haven to Al Qaeda, which allowed terrorists to plan and carry out attacks around the world. That is why the United Nations authorised a NATO/ISAF-led military intervention. Getting rid of the Taliban regime and Al Qaeda was only the first part of the job. The second is to make sure they cannot return.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

up for anything

benwavner wrote: »

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?

NIMAN wrote: »

I would say there are many that join armies as they have no other outlook in terms of jobs or earning money.

I phrased what I wished to say very badly. Niman has expressed it much better than I.

I wasn't qualified at anything at that age except to work in junior retail but I was in the process of qualifying.

It is very easy to belittle any profession or job of work but it's not very polite.

kneemos

The soldiers who have been mutilated I wonder how do they feel about thier hero status.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

up for anything wrote: »

I phrased what I wished to say very badly. Niman has expressed it much better than I.

I wasn't qualified at anything at that age except to work in junior retail but I was in the process of qualifying.

It is very easy to belittle any profession or job of work but it's not very polite.

Agreed, I acknowledge that some soldiers may not have had the opportunity to progress to University, and are essentially unqualified in that right.

I took your wording as a derogatory remark about us being good for nothing else and as lesser members of society.

Jimoslimos

I live in the UK and I despise the glorification of soldiers here, somewhat of a fetish I would say. Charity events for 'Help for Heroes' for some reason make me feel rather uncomfortable. A masterstroke to have the public pick up the bill for the rehabilitation of wounded soldiers whilst politicians pay lip service at every funeral, memorial event, Remembrance Sunday, etc. Regardless of whether I feel war is justified or not the government that sends an army out to war should surely pick up the cost rather than rely on public charity.

I understand the need for an army, but I don't hold soldiers in any high regard. End of the day their primary purpose is to kill, no amount of waffle about rebuilding and reconstruction takes away from this - if that's what you wanted you would send construction workers and engineers instead.

Is a man who is armed with the latest military equipment, surrounded/protected by a battalion of men who are also similarly armed, fighting a ramshackle group of peasants using outdated Soviet technology any braver than the man who absconds and decides to try support a young family, whose presence at home is of far greater worth than what he could achieve dodging crude roadside bombs and taking pot shots at kids throwing rocks?

When the protester in Tienanmen Square stood defiantly in the way of the oncoming tanks, who was the 'hero'? That took bravery and courage, the actions of the military? Just following orders, as all well-drilled armies do. No different to those serving in Iraq/Afghan today. Independent thought isn't something to be encouraged in combat.

feeney92 wrote: »

Soldiers become heroes when they are wounded in battle simply because it takes a serious amount of courage and bravery for somebody to put their life on the line for something.

No, it takes a certain level of recklessness and disregard for your own safety (and in many cases the livelihood of your family). Bravery cannot exist without fear, and I see little of that in most armed forces.

feeney92 wrote: »

I think common sense, obviously in your case this didn't prevail, knows I didn't mean those type of soldiers. you must be a politician cos your great at twisting words?

Ah, the no true Scotsman argument.

Pedant

opinionated3 wrote: »

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

The Taliban might as well be Bedouin, in the way they live.

bwatson

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I live in the UK and I despise the glorification of soldiers here, somewhat of a fetish I would say.

I completely disagree. British society doesn't do anywhere near enough to show support for its military personnel. If there is one thing that the US does incredibly well in (well actually there are thousands of things but hey) it is treating their serving personnel and their veterals with the respect and gratitude they deserve. Its good to see that in recent years Britain has been moving along this path but there is still a fair way to go. The recent example of soldiers being chucked from a pub following the funeral of a brother killed in Afghanistan (Afghan is a dog) is one very sad example of how flawed we still are.

I understand the need for an army, but I don't hold soldiers in any high regard. End of the day their primary purpose is to kill, no amount of waffle about rebuilding and reconstruction takes away from this - if that's what you wanted you would send construction workers and engineers instead.

This is a very basic understanding of what an army is. Yes, having the ability to kill the enemy is something every serving soldier needs to be capable of, whether they are an infantryman, a helicopter pilot or an intelligence officer. However, this is not something that individuals or the institution as a whole would ever apologize for. You say that sending construction workers and engineers would do the job in Afghanistan - funnily enough many nations tried that and the consequences weren't great for many of them. Those who are there to rid the land of taliban and conected forces are actually trying to facilitate the reintroduction of construction workers to further help rebuild the state.

Is a man who is armed with the latest military equipment, surrounded/protected by a battalion of men who are also similarly armed, fighting a ramshackle group of peasants using outdated Soviet technology any braver than the man who absconds and decides to try support a young family, whose presence at home is of far greater worth than what he could achieve dodging crude roadside bombs and taking pot shots at kids throwing rocks?

A ramshackle group of peasants? I don't think many in the British Armed Forces would agree with your assessment of the taliban. Sure, some locals do take up arms for a quick pay day but they certainly do not make up the bulk of the forces faced by NATO. As for the second point here, to abscond, or more bluntly to run away from your commitments and your duty in favour of staying in the safety of the UK, is incredibly cowardly. I don't see how you could even argue this point!

When the protester in Tienanmen Square stood defiantly in the way of the oncoming tanks, who was the 'hero'? That took bravery and courage, the actions of the military? Just following orders, as all well-drilled armies do. No different to those serving in Iraq/Afghan today. Independent thought isn't something to be encouraged in combat

Independent thought is something not encouraged in front line units? Are you sure?

No, it takes a certain level of recklessness and disregard for your own safety (and in many cases the livelihood of your family). Bravery cannot exist without fear, and I see little of that in most armed forces.

You think that those who face a well drilled and fanatical enemy day in day out exist entirely without fear during their six month tour of Helmand Province? Once again, are you sure?

christmas2012

nah..i think soldiers are fools for going out to these places leave them to it,why bother getting into needless trouble like that?bits blown off you or your collegues hardly worth the hassle..

more should be done with the UN and organisations like that,they should only be in that capacity..

Jimoslimos

bwatson wrote: »

The recent example of soldiers being chucked from a pub following the funeral of a brother killed in Afghanistan (Afghan is a dog) is one very sad example of how flawed we still are.

Did you ever stop to wonder why soldiers (in uniform) would be refused entry? Previous trouble not unheard of? Certainly nobody would bat an eyelid if an establishment refused entry to a group of travellers wanting a 'cup of coffee', funeral or not. The reputation of their comrades has preceded them.

Anyway I read the place in question ended up having to close on Armed Forces Day over 'threats'. Smacks of bullying to me.

bwatson wrote: »

This is a very basic understanding of what an army is. Yes, having the ability to kill the enemy is something every serving soldier needs to be capable of, whether they are an infantryman, a helicopter pilot or an intelligence officer. However, this is not something that individuals or the institution as a whole would ever apologize for. You say that sending construction workers and engineers would do the job in Afghanistan - funnily enough many nations tried that and the consequences weren't great for many of them. Those who are there to rid the land of taliban and conected forces are actually trying to facilitate the reintroduction of construction workers to further help rebuild the state.

Yes, most modern armies have highly specialised units and of course I don't advocate sending unarmed civilians into a war zone but wars aren't ultimately won by how many irrigation projects are built or bridges repaired - they're won by killing more of the enemy than you lose (or can accept to lose). Fundamentally that's an armies raison d'être.

Any infrastructure works carried out are usually with military aims in mind first, civilians second. Sure it might be a happy outcome for some villagers to be able to visit relatives the other side of the ravine, receive supplies, etc but if that same bridge was a source of infiltrating enemy combatants you can be guaranteed it would be taken out of service pretty quickly.

The media shields the public from the ugly face of war in order to preserve the image of the honourable soldier fighting to protect Queen and country. The reality is somewhat different.

bwatson wrote: »

As for the second point here, to abscond, or more bluntly to run away from your commitments and your duty in favour of staying in the safety of the UK, is incredibly cowardly. I don't see how you could even argue this point!

to abscond, or more bluntly to run away from your commitments and your duty to your wife and children in favour of staying in the safety of your paid job with mates who've got your back coveredthe UK, is incredibly cowardly. I don't see how you could even argue this point!

bwatson wrote: »

Independent thought is something not encouraged in front line units? Are you sure?

Quick wits - yes. Independent thought - No. An army couldn't function effectively if every order coming from command was challenged by front-line troops.

bwatson wrote: »

You think that those who face a well drilled and fanatical enemy day in day out exist entirely without fear during their six month tour of Helmand Province? Once again, are you sure?

Being on edge is a desirable trait to have, relaxed soldiers are easy targets. Plus what of their enemies, who don't have the luxury of a 6-month tour of duty? I certainly think every effort is made to psychologically control soldiers. Fear is an extremely important emotion. It stops us doing stupid things and works (most of the time) to consider the most appropriate plan of action (to keep the individual alive, so not working for the good of the unit), fight or flight. The taliban use religion and the promise of 72 virgins, US military insert a notion of protecting loved ones freedom, and most, including the IRA use patriotism to control fear and use it to an advantage.

Giselle

christmas2012 wrote: »

nah..i think soldiers are fools for going out to these places leave them to it,why bother getting into needless trouble like that?bits blown off you or your collegues hardly worth the hassle..

more should be done with the UN and organisations like that,they should only be in that capacity..

Quite simply because if you leave these incubators of terrorism and terrorist regimes to profliferate, they take their terror elsewhere, and because oppressed peoples need armies to fight on their behalf when they are powerless and suffering.

Terrorists don't just keep within their own boundaries, resulting in bombings in Western cities, undermining the internal security of other countries. The threat of terror handicaps a country almost as much as the reality of it. Societies can only function when the threat and actuality of terror is reduced.

Soldiers brave enough to fight to keep their home nations safe from the intrusion of those that would do you harm are not fools, they ARE heroes. Its very easy to pour scorn on people or to question their motives for joining an army, but when the proverbial hits the fan these are the guys everyone relies on, and they do their job.

Anyone who thinks that reconstruction can take place without stability being established first - through the displacement or neutralisation of those regimes or interlopers that cause the failure of the society they occupy, is more than a little naive.

I detest war and warmongering, but any sensible person recognises the need for armies.

Cú Giobach

Jimoslimos wrote: »

No, it takes a certain level of recklessness and disregard for your own safety (and in many cases the livelihood of your family). Bravery cannot exist without fear, and I see little of that in most armed forces.

Interesting, what battles have you been involved in to witness the lack of fear in the combatants?

Quick wits - yes. Independent thought - No. An army couldn't function effectively if every order coming from command was challenged by front-line troops.

Actually in any decent army the ability to act independently is very important. It's not about challenging orders it's about operating without orders.
Once battle starts plans tend to go out the window and if the chain of command is broken it's important individuals have the ability to make confident decisions themselves, this was actually one of the major advantages the Wehrmacht initially had over the Soviets during WWII.

Zulu

To all the solders reading this thread: thank you.

Please bear in mind that the majority of our society appreciates what you do with what little we give you. Try to ignore the cretinous keyboard warrior type remarks.

kneemos

Do the soldiers see themselves as heros or are you being offended on thier behalf.

Zulu

who, me?

kneemos

Zulu wrote: »

who, me?

Yes

Zulu

how would i know how solders see themselves?

Kirby

He is probably asking if you are in fact a soldier, or know any personally. Kind of important information to frame your opinion. Most of the "hero soldiers ra ra" brigade have it in the family or know people who are.

Zulu

I'm not a solder, & I don't know any. I do however respect & appreciate the work they do. Particularly the our own defense forces.

kneemos

I have admiration for what they do as well.It's the glorification of those who get blown apart,very convenient for the goverment to have them portrayed as heros

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

fishy fishy

haven't read the whole thread but my opinion is that those who give the "call to war" should have their own families trained and sent as soldiers to fight.

Believe me, there would be no call to war then.

Its patronizing to call them hero's - its like a pat on the head to them when something happens. As I say you won't see the people who call war have any of their family being "hero's"

LincolnsBeard

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I understand the need for an army, but I don't hold soldiers in any high regard. End of the day their primary purpose is to kill, no amount of waffle about rebuilding and reconstruction takes away from this - if that's what you wanted you would send construction workers and engineers instead.

It does not sound like you do when you're questioning why we cannot send Engineers and construction workers to rebuild Afghanistan.

Kenneth Bigley was a civil engineer in Iraq and that Islamic extremist group sliced his head off his neck on camera.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Is a man who is armed with the latest military equipment, surrounded/protected by a battalion of men who are also similarly armed, fighting a ramshackle group of peasants using outdated Soviet technology any braver than the man who absconds and decides to try support a young family, whose presence at home is of far greater worth than what he could achieve dodging crude roadside bombs and taking pot shots at kids throwing rocks?

You sound ill informed. Do some research on the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

When the protester in Tienanmen Square stood defiantly in the way of the oncoming tanks, who was the 'hero'? That took bravery and courage, the actions of the military? Just following orders, as all well-drilled armies do. No different to those serving in Iraq/Afghan today. Independent thought isn't something to be encouraged in combat.

Can you independently think your way out of a Nazi invasion?

Apologies for Godwin's Law.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

No, it takes a certain level of recklessness and disregard for your own safety (and in many cases the livelihood of your family).

Hence why we respect the folk willing to risk their lives instead of ourselves having to.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Bravery cannot exist without fear, and I see little of that in most armed forces.

You don't think people serving on the front line fear getting blown to smithereens by a roadside bomb?

Kirby

LincolnsBeard wrote: »

Can you independently think your way out of a Nazi invasion?

Apologies for Godwin's Law.

Well since you decided to go all godwin on us......No you can't thin yourself out of an invasion, but when was the last time a western power was "invaded"? It doesn't happen anymore. As I said earlier in the thread, the days of wwII are long gone. Modern armies are not used for defense. Nobody invaded America and yet they invade half of the middle east on the whim of rich men who want to get richer.

The argument that we need soldiers because it's the only way to be safe is ridiculous. Dangers to the modern west come from terrorism, not invasion. And the military doesn't counter this.

Zulu

Kirby wrote: »

but when was the last time a western power was "invaded"? It doesn't happen anymore.

2008: Russia invaded Georgia. But don't worry about that. :rolleyes:

Border-Rat

feeney92 wrote: »

The soldiers had no say in that matter, they are fighting for each other over there. Plain and simple

He said they were doing it to protect others. Soldiers signing up post-2001 certainly have a say in it. Most of them are flying out with the intention of killing for money. A man who 'fights for the man next to him' is a mercenary. A man who fights to protect his populace is a soldier.

The 90 resistance factions fighting NATO have never harmed a soul from the UK. Most of them were farmers before 2001.

Border-Rat

Zulu wrote: »

2008: Russia invaded Georgia. But don't worry about that. :rolleyes:

Georgia invaded South Ossetia, killing Russian Nationals.

And, rightly, got bitch-slapped for it.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

Border-Rat

feeney92 wrote: »

hear this lads? if you protect your friends your a Mercenary!! Ive heard it all now.............

If you sign up to kill foreigners who are no threat to your own populace, you are a mercenary. 'Fighting for the man next to me' is their way of rationalising no just cause. No Afghan ever violated the integrity of the UK.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

Border-Rat

feeney92 wrote: »

No harboring Terrorists who committed 9/11 and then 7/11 In LONDON isn't violating the UK's integrity. Cop on!!

No Afghan was involved in either of those. Even if they were, by this logic, an invasion force is needed for the UK, which invaded Iraq under false pretense leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands. For a moralist (Assuming your not a Brit-fetishist here), you have your priorities in disorder.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

Border-Rat

feeney92 wrote: »

This is so wrong its unbelievable.....

The men (Allegedly) involved in 9/11 were Saudi. Of course those of us with intelligence know that no Muslim whatsoever was involved in wither 9/11 or 7/7, apart from a small group of bewildered pastsy's on 7/7. But lets for a minute entertain this fantasy; Why should I believe the people who lied about Iraqi WMD when they tell me about Afghan involvment in terrorism?

I can see from your username and from previous encounters with you, your no fan of the British.

This is ad hom and off topic.

But to deny the fact that the Taliban, who in case you didnt know are Afghans, weren't involved in 9/11 and 7/11 is downright ridiculous.

Well, there are actually two Taliban groups, only one of them is Afghani. Secondly, Bin Laden denied any involvement in 9/11 as a representative of the Taliban. Third, there are over 90 resistance factions and the Taliban make only two.

Fourth, you conveniently ignored my question. Assuming we entertain the laughable theory that Afghans facilitated 9/11 leading to the deaths of 3,000 Americans, then what is the difference between that and the UK attacking Iraq, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands?

Zulu

Border-Rat wrote: »

Georgia invaded South Ossetia, killing Russian Nationals...

...and the salient point is? That it still happens. Thank you.

Kirby

Zulu wrote: »

2008: Russia invaded Georgia. But don't worry about that. :rolleyes:

When I said Western power, I meant western power. Which is why I said the word "west" and not "east".

I know it's confusing but try to keep up.

Border-Rat

Kirby wrote: »

When I said Western power, I meant western power. Which is why I said the word "west" and not "east".

I know it's confusing but try to keep up.

Georgia is a Western Power. Or was.

Zulu

Kirby wrote: »

When I said Western power, I meant western power. Which is why I said the word "west" and not "east".

I know it's confusing but try to keep up.

I suppose 1992: Bosnia is too far east for you also. Fair enough.

1982: Falklands too far south?
1974: Cyprus (unresolved) too far ...sunny?

Yea you nailed your point out of the park there buddy.

Kirby

Are you really going to cite civil wars and unrest as an example of a western power being "invaded"? I know people feel desperation to score points on here but there is a limit to how much straw you can pack into your little strawman.

Zulu

Kirby wrote: »

Are you really going to cite civil wars and unrest as an example of a western power being "invaded"?

Nope, I won't. Cyprus & the Falklands weren't civil wars.

I know people feel desperation to score points on here but there is a limit to how much straw you can pack into your little strawman.

Your argument is so dead, it's laughable.

That you are trying to defend your flawed asseretion is chringe worthy.

The words you are looking for are: "sorry, I was mistaken. I hadn't considered those conflicts"

Border-Rat

Kirby wrote: »

Are you really going to cite civil wars and unrest as an example of a western power being "invaded"? I know people feel desperation to score points on here but there is a limit to how much straw you can pack into your little strawman.

When all is said and done the plutocratic Anglo-Americans kicked the West in the balls. Iraq was a good buffer state for the West. They invaded, got kicked out and handed the capital to Iran. Now we have no buffer state in the Middle East. Likewise in Northern Africa, a good buffer state for Greece, Italy and Europe as a whole re: Immigration and Islamic influence. Now, removed and replaced with a deeply unstable anti-Western regime.

Good going, lads. Now Islamic influence is closer than ever to Europe, thanks to the war-mongering Anglo Americans. Maybe it would be different if they didn't get beaten black and blue and could actually hold and develop these areas. But they can't. They get mauled by Iraqis and now they want to challenge Iran?

LincolnsBeard

Border-Rat wrote: »

When all is said and done the plutocratic Anglo-Americans kicked the West in the balls. Iraq was a good buffer state for the West. They invaded, got kicked out and handed the capital to Iran. Now we have no buffer state in the Middle East. Likewise in Northern Africa, a good buffer state for Greece, Italy and Europe as a whole re: Immigration and Islamic influence. Now, removed and replaced with a deeply unstable anti-Western regime.

Good going, lads. Now Islamic influence is closer than ever to Europe, thanks to the war-mongering Anglo Americans. Maybe it would be different if they didn't get beaten black and blue and could actually hold and develop these areas. But they can't. They get mauled by Iraqis and now they want to challenge Iran?

Your overwhelming hatred for the US and UK makes anything you say irrelevant to be honest.

This isn't the first time I've seen you write such trollop.

Kirby

Zulu wrote: »

Nope, I won't. Cyprus & the Falklands weren't civil wars.
.

If you say that to any Cpyriot he will either laugh at you or hit you.

You are pro military. Fine. That's your opinion. But that doesn't mean you can just re-write history to suit your argument. Open a history book or do some googling if you are too lazy for even that. You are woefully misinformed on the subject and I don't debate with the ignorant. People know where I stand on this so there is no point going around this again. This is the last I'll be posting on the subject.

Zulu

Kirby wrote: »

This is the last I'll be posting on the subject.

that's probably no harm considering your ignorance on the subject.