davieG Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 Hasn't this always been the case? Only after National Service ended in 1960. I had a brother who served in Singapore and Malaysia he certainly didn't volunteer.
Guest Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 I am pretty sure that Reynard is a serving or ex-soldier, so I would say he probably has a more valid opinion on this than you. I don't have a hard on for war, I find it appalling and tragic and often unnecessary, but it is not the soldiers that decide where they invade and when, for that I will always respect the armed forces and loathe those that misuse them. I don't necessarily agree with armed forces day, I don't think it is necessary and probably a bit crass considering what has happened in the last few years, but not as crass as your original post. Reynard's opinion would be more biased than mine. I don't see how being an ex killer soldier would make it necessarily more valid (the killer remark is mostly tongue in cheek). My wife's family is mostly army. I know something about soldiers. No soldiers don't decide where to invade. they agree on taking the job that they will go wherever and do whatever someone tells them to do. That's another reason I find soldiers (not signing on just to defend their country in times of war) to be, generally, idiots. My original post was not about the idiocy of being in the army and fighting wars that have nothing to do with us. It was about the public's new illness of having to "deify" these soldiers.
Guest Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 I think for a long of young men the option of joining the services was probably the only one available that would give them a sense of belonging, discipline and a career path for life. These aren't guys coming out of Oxford with Economics degrees volunteering to put their life on the line. If people want a day to show some respect to them I really don't see the problem. I can agree with what you're saying. Most soldiers couldn't get a real job and many are not of above average intelligence. The "put their life on the line" line is simply bullshit. they couldn't do anything else. Patrolling and killing inhabitants of Iraq and Afghanistan is nothing to be proud of. Defending your nation from conquest by the huns is but we're far far from that nowadays. I'm more ashamed of what we're doing in the middle East than proud. We shouldn't be applauding such atrocities. We do seem to have suddenly decided a bunch of not very qualified squaddies who signed up in full knowledge of the job they were expected to do gonig to war, doing that job and coming home again is something to celebrate. Strange. Fair enough it is sad if someone loses a life in the process, but they are not kids, they know the job and the risks, and they accept them. 100% this!
Guest Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 I cant see what the problem is. We seem to be more proud of the gay pride march through London, than we are with our armed forces.... What is there to be proud about? I guess we can be proud about our open-mindedness and love of eccentric colour in the first and proud of our nice uniforms in the second.
Finnegan Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 How does being a soldier mean you have a more valid opinion on what people at home think about soldiers while they're away (which is what the thread is about) than the people at home? If FIF was trying to lecture Reynard on military tactics or the nature of a warzone then fair enough but he isn't. Think the chap should wind his neck in a bit really.
Guest Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 Only after National Service ended in 1960. I had a brother who served in Singapore and Malaysia he certainly didn't volunteer. Yeah, I had family in Singapore too. but that was another time, that was when our freedom was endangered. I understand our respect and celebration of guys who fought in the wars. I can understand remembrance day for all soldiers killed in any way at any time.
I am Rod Hull Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 What is there to be proud about? I guess we can be proud about our open-mindedness and love of eccentric colour in the first and proud of our nice uniforms in the second. Lets call it evens with this.
Captain... Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 Yeah, I had family in Singapore too. but that was another time, that was when our freedom was endangered. I understand our respect and celebration of guys who fought in the wars. I can understand remembrance day for all soldiers killed in any way at any time. This makes no sense, you respect soldiers that fought in wars you agree with but not ones you don't. They don't decide to which war to fight, they sign up to protect the country and fight just wars, they have no control over corrupt politicians pushing them into immoral conflicts. Lets put it this way, a young man losing his life fighting a just war against tyranny and invading oppressive forces to protect this country and liberty is tragic, right? In my opinion it is even more tragic when the same life is lost for no just reason and at the whim of a power hungry politician. To be honest I largely agree with you, especially about armed forces day, it is not necessary, but you are being very glib and crass about people dying. The 'war' in Iraq was completely unjust and has resulted in the needless loss of thousands of young lives and that is a huge tragedy.
Finnegan Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 I agree with you but I'm going to argue with you anyway. Classic FT.
Captain... Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 I agree with you but I'm going to argue with you anyway. Classic FT. I agree with him up to the point he started going on about soldiers dying and how he couldn't understand why people cared, to be honest I think we are fairly restrained in our grief on this matter especially when compared to the US. It just seemed a very disrespectful way to talk about people who could very well be defending our homes, lives and liberty in the not too distant future.
Guest Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 This makes no sense, you respect soldiers that fought in wars you agree with but not ones you don't. They don't decide to which war to fight, they sign up to protect the country and fight just wars, they have no control over corrupt politicians pushing them into immoral conflicts. Lets put it this way, a young man losing his life fighting a just war against tyranny and invading oppressive forces to protect this country and liberty is tragic, right? In my opinion it is even more tragic when the same life is lost for no just reason and at the whim of a power hungry politician. To be honest I largely agree with you, especially about armed forces day, it is not necessary, but you are being very glib and crass about people dying. The 'war' in Iraq was completely unjust and has resulted in the needless loss of thousands of young lives and that is a huge tragedy. You can't understand the difference between men fighting in WW1 and WW2 when Germany was knocking on the door and men fighting in Afghanisatn and Iraq? You can't understand why I would respect the first and not the second? Fair enough, we must be divided by the same language. The wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq should have had nothing to do with us. The continued presence of Brits there is even worse. I cannot weep for men killed in a place they shouldn't be. To go further I have no respect for guys who sign up to go and kill others, and I have little respect for people who will forego their own morals because somebody tells them to do something. I can understand people fighting fo their families and own freedom I cannot understand people fighting for oil or whatever the govt wish to say the reason is. They don't have my respect. Following orders is not an excuse. But that wasn't what I was talking about in the OP. I was talking about the public's actions towards these soldiers (not questioning the soldiers themselves). Patriotic jingoism that should have been left in the middle of the last century.
Guest Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 I agree with him up to the point he started going on about soldiers dying and how he couldn't understand why people cared, to be honest I think we are fairly restrained in our grief on this matter especially when compared to the US. It just seemed a very disrespectful way to talk about people who could very well be defending our homes, lives and liberty in the not too distant future. Again this wasn't the pôint of the thread but since you have taken the thread in that direction I have no repsect for morons who follow orders when they are clearly wrong (however you want to take that). They will never be defending our homes, there is nothing in England that an attacker could possibly want.
I am Rod Hull Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 Again this wasn't the pôint of the thread but since you have taken the thread in that direction I have no repsect for morons who follow orders when they are clearly wrong (however you want to take that). They will never be defending our homes, there is nothing in England that an attacker could possibly want. Are you living in France?
Captain... Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 You can't understand the difference between men fighting in WW1 and WW2 when Germany was knocking on the door and men fighting in Afghanisatn and Iraq? You can't understand why I would respect the first and not the second? Fair enough, we must be divided by the same language. The wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq should have had nothing to do with us. The continued presence of Brits there is even worse. I cannot weep for men killed in a place they shouldn't be. They are the same people, and if Germany or Al Qaeda attacked tomorrow, they would be the first ones defending this country, it is like blaming the teller in your local Barclays for the crimes committed at the top. As you are at great pains to point out they are employees, they have a job to do and the consequences of not obeying orders are very severe and soldiers are indoctrinated into following orders. To go further I have no respect for guys who sign up to go and kill others, and I have little respect for people who will forego their own morals because somebody tells them to do something. I can understand people fighting fo their families and own freedom I cannot understand people fighting for oil or whatever the govt wish to say the reason is. They don't have my respect. Following orders is not an excuse. But that wasn't what I was talking about in the OP. I was talking about the public's actions towards these soldiers (not questioning the soldiers themselves). Patriotic jingoism that should have been left in the middle of the last century. Most people don't sign up to kill others, I'm not saying that there aren't people who sign up to go and kill some "sand niggers", but the majority will do it out of a sense of duty or it being the best option career wise. Getting back to the public's reaction, this is because most of them see them as I do, not amoral killers, but normal young people sent into conflict fighting for the Government on behalf of this country, but I don't even think there is a mass outpouring of grief for soldiers in this country, certainly not on the scale of Di, Jade Goody or Gary Speed.
ADK Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 What do you think the men who fought in WW1 and WW2 signed up to do? Ask the Germans politely to stop shooting at them? So on one hand you think people fighting in afghanistan are "morons" yet if we were to be invaded you would instantly have respect for them?
Daggers Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 Are you living in France? He could still have a home in the UK.
I am Rod Hull Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 He could still have a home in the UK. He rents it out to Asians.
MooseBreath Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 I always thought FIF was a woman. It certainly writes like one. I think it's pretty obvious that the 'pride' shown towards the army is an intentional invention designed to ensure that a certain type of person is appropriately incentivised to join. It's no use saying, "hey young healthy guy, come work for us, you'll die, for no reason at all, and nobody will ever care" because then nobody would ever join. Now that's out of the way. I want to know how on earth you think the build up to the olympics is "sickening"? SICKENING?!?? Jesus christ. I'm fairly anti-nationalistic bullshit for the sake of it but this is the olympics, one of the most famous global cultural events in the history of humanity. Do you ever stop and think that all this hatred for everything might be a bit of a waste of time?
Jon the Hat Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 I also don't believe people join the army to protect their country.
FoxyPV Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 Squaddies join the Army because they've no other option. It's good money for an unskilled 16 year old with fvck all prospects and offers an opportunity to learn a trade if so desired.
Zingari Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 I always thought FIF was a woman. It certainly writes like one. I think it's pretty obvious that the 'pride' shown towards the army is an intentional invention designed to ensure that a certain type of person is appropriately incentivised to join. It's no use saying, "hey young healthy guy, come work for us, you'll die, for no reason at all, and nobody will ever care" because then nobody would ever join. Now that's out of the way. I want to know how on earth you think the build up to the olympics is "sickening"? SICKENING?!?? Jesus christ. I'm fairly anti-nationalistic bullshit for the sake of it but this is the olympics, one of the most famous global cultural events in the history of humanity. Do you ever stop and think that all this hatred for everything might be a bit of a waste of time? How does someone write like a woman ?
Guest MattP Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 How does someone write like a woman ? Read the 50 Shades of Grey thread.
Guest Posted 4 July 2012 Posted 4 July 2012 Most people don't sign up to kill others, I'm not saying that there aren't people who sign up to go and kill some "sand niggers", but the majority will do it out of a sense of duty or it being the best option career wise. And it doesn't worry you that people will sign up to kill afghans and Iraqis "out of a sense of duty" or "it being the best option career wise"?
Guest Posted 4 July 2012 Posted 4 July 2012 What do you think the men who fought in WW1 and WW2 signed up to do? Ask the Germans politely to stop shooting at them? So on one hand you think people fighting in afghanistan are "morons" yet if we were to be invaded you would instantly have respect for them? No, I think people fighting in WW1 and WW2 decided that they had to fight in order to stop their country being taken over by Nazi Germany and to defend their families. We're not in that situation now and it's unlikely that we ever shall be again. The army is now a politco-commercial wing of the government and people signing up for it are doing it for the money and not understanding the fact that they may need to kill innocent people for nothing more than commecrcial gain. I think they are morons for agreeing to do this initially and not refusing to do this when someone tells them to. WW2 ensured that everyone has the choice to say "no"
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.