Armed Forces Day

[Guest]

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?

as soon as I saw that you disagree with me I felt happy with my decision.

The olympics is a commercial event if that equates to global cultural so be it. and I'm sick to death of the daily running commentary on it. I'm sick to death of the adverts linked to it. It's JUST another sporting event that is affecting people with no interest in sport as well as those who may have. I have nothing against the event per se - I've always enjoyed watching it before but a few weeks every four years is enough. We've had it rammed down our throats every day for the last 6 years.

Get it on, get it over and then let's try and recover from it.

[Guest]

I always thought FIF was a woman. It certainly writes like one.

Sounds a terribly sexist comment to me. I don't see that it matters on an internet site if I were a woman, a man, an insect or an alien hermaphrodite. Still when I read your comments I admit I think you must be a racist, sexist moron but I keep that to myself.

Read the 50 Shades of Grey thread.

That's rather unfair. Some of the greatest writers in history were women

[Captain...]

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"?

Ok so what you are saying that is noble and just to protect people in this country from oppressive brutal forces, but not to protect civilians from other countries from the same problem.

Most people do not sign up to kill people, they sign up to protect people and protect freedoms, if in doing so they have to kill people then that is part of the job. As I have said some people do sign up because they like the idea of killing people, but that is the minority.

It's like being a policeman, I couldn't think of a worse job, or a more thankless task, but some people don't think like that, some people become policeman because they want to help people, protect people and serve the community, soldiers are no different, but instead of serving the community they serve the nation.

Regardless of the political motivations behind Afghanistan and Iraq, and more recently Libya, and maybe Syria in the not too distant future, there were still many innocent civilians being killed by oppressive, brutal regimes. In the main the British army were out there to stop that and protect the innocent, and put their lives on the line in doing so.

[Trav Le Bleu]

That's rather unfair. Some of the greatest writers in history were women

George Eliot, Richmal Crompton, Currer Bell, Ellis Bell, Howard O'Brien, Julian May, George Sand...

[Guest]

Ok so what you are saying that is noble and just to protect people in this country from oppressive brutal forces, but not to protect civilians from other countries from the same problem.

Most people do not sign up to kill people, they sign up to protect people and protect freedoms, if in doing so they have to kill people then that is part of the job. As I have said some people do sign up because they like the idea of killing people, but that is the minority.

It's like being a policeman, I couldn't think of a worse job, or a more thankless task, but some people don't think like that, some people become policeman because they want to help people, protect people and serve the community, soldiers are no different, but instead of serving the community they serve the nation.

Regardless of the political motivations behind Afghanistan and Iraq, and more recently Libya, and maybe Syria in the not too distant future, there were still many innocent civilians being killed by oppressive, brutal regimes. In the main the British army were out there to stop that and protect the innocent, and put their lives on the line in doing so.

Who decides and who has the right to decide if civilians from other countries are in need of "our help"? The Iraqis were not being attacked by another country, the libyans were not being attacked by another country, the syrians are not being attacked by another country - as far as I know.

We went into Iraq and Libya because of their commercial value to us, nothing to do with the civilians. otherwise we wouldn't have allowed the atrocities that are always taking place in many African countries, some people may say that the US is an oppressive country should we go in there?

I see a great difference in fighting for your own country against an invader and fighting in a foreign country because you want to have some control over the oil supply.

It is my opinion that MOST people sign up for money because they are incapable of getting a job. The government should be looking at ways to create jobs for people in England - perhaps protecting the environment and picking up litter would be better than "protecting the Afghan people" and picking up land mines. The people who sign up should realise that killing people is part of their job description, if they don't then they are not fit for the position, if they do then they are crazy. To kill someone's son/daughter because another person tells you to is criminal.

It's nothing like being a policeman. A policeman is a community worker and I respect them for the job they do. They are far more deserving of "special days" than soldiers. In France you have municipal police and Gendarmes. The Gendarmes are soldiers but they work inside France on the streets as police in England as well as outside as our Army. I would have more respect for our army if they "policed" the streets - though I think the police system in England is far better than in France.

We are not world protecters with the glowing white halos that needs. The UN is supposedly there for world problems NOT the British army. We should not be putting our noses into other countries' business in that way. The UN should be.

in my own opinion of course.

[Webbo]

We went into Iraq and Libya because of their commercial value to us, nothing to do with the civilians. otherwise we wouldn't have allowed the atrocities that are always taking place in many African countries, some people may say that the US is an oppressive country should we go in there?

We all ready had the oil rights in Lybia, by supporting the rebels we risked that and there was no guarantee we would get it off the next govt.

[Guest]

We all ready had the oil rights in Lybia, by supporting the rebels we risked that and there was no guarantee we would get it off the next govt.

Yeah right

[Guest]

What comments do you have regarding our recent contact with Gaddafi (before the uprising I mean)

[Webbo]

What comments do you have regarding our recent contact with Gaddafi (before the uprising I mean)

What are you saying? We shouldn't deal with despots who torture their own citizens and at the same time we shouldn't get involved with a civil war because it's none of our business?

[21st Century Fox]

What are you saying? We shouldn't deal with despots who torture their own citizens and at the same time we shouldn't get involved with a civil war because it's none of our business?

I think he means how do you know what relations were like with Gaddafi prior to the Arab Spring. Also the fact that the rebellion had reached a point where Gaddafi's position was untenable, we obviously needed to exert our force to be at the right hand of the next regime.

[Webbo]

I think he means how do you know what relations were like with Gaddafi prior to the Arab Spring. Also the fact that the rebellion had reached a point where Gaddafi's position was untenable, we obviously needed to exert our force to be at the right hand of the next regime.

Well there was no reports of any falling out before the uprising. The rebellion hadn't reach a point were victory was assured, it was at a point where the Syrian uprising is now.

Do I think Blair did the right thing sucking up to Gadaffi for the sake of our prosperity and jobs? Yes I do.

Should we have got involved in the Lybian uprising? Probably not but to pretend we did it for oil when we already had the oil is ridiculously cynical.

[21st Century Fox]

Well there was no reports of any falling out before the uprising. The rebellion hadn't reach a point were victory was assured, it was at a point where the Syrian uprising is now.

Do I think Blair did the right thing sucking up to Gadaffi for the sake of our prosperity and jobs? Yes I do.

Should we have got involved in the Lybian uprising? Probably not but to pretend we did it for oil when we already had the oil is ridiculously cynical.

Not really, we aren't privy to a lot of information, the papers don't report everything. We had to get involved in the uprising because we had too much at risk, precisely why we haven't done anything in Syria.

Why do you think we spent millions intervening in Libya? It certainly wasn't for the good of the Libyan people.

How far would you put prosperity and jobs over human life?

[Webbo]

Why do you think we spent millions intervening in Libya? It certainly wasn't for the good of the Libyan people.

How do you know that?

[21st Century Fox]

How do you know that?

Are you being serious?

[Webbo]

Are you being serious?

Have you any proof or are you just being cynical?

[21st Century Fox]

We spent £1.75bn (from the Mail no less) to safeguard the futures of the Libyan people, yet weeks later David Cameron was on was on an Arms Trade mission in the Middle East.

Which one of those flies in the face of the "for the sake of our prosperity and jobs"?

[Webbo]

We spent £1.75bn (from the Mail no less) to safeguard the futures of the Libyan people, yet weeks later David Cameron was on was on an Arms Trade mission in the Middle East.

Which one of those flies in the face of the "for the sake of our prosperity and jobs"?

And what does that prove? Gadaffi bought arms as well.

[Captain...]

Who decides and who has the right to decide if civilians from other countries are in need of "our help"? The Iraqis were not being attacked by another country, the libyans were not being attacked by another country, the syrians are not being attacked by another country - as far as I know.

We went into Iraq and Libya because of their commercial value to us, nothing to do with the civilians. otherwise we wouldn't have allowed the atrocities that are always taking place in many African countries, some people may say that the US is an oppressive country should we go in there?

I see a great difference in fighting for your own country against an invader and fighting in a foreign country because you want to have some control over the oil supply.

It is my opinion that MOST people sign up for money because they are incapable of getting a job. The government should be looking at ways to create jobs for people in England - perhaps protecting the environment and picking up litter would be better than "protecting the Afghan people" and picking up land mines. The people who sign up should realise that killing people is part of their job description, if they don't then they are not fit for the position, if they do then they are crazy. To kill someone's son/daughter because another person tells you to is criminal.

It's nothing like being a policeman. A policeman is a community worker and I respect them for the job they do. They are far more deserving of "special days" than soldiers. In France you have municipal police and Gendarmes. The Gendarmes are soldiers but they work inside France on the streets as police in England as well as outside as our Army. I would have more respect for our army if they "policed" the streets - though I think the police system in England is far better than in France.

We are not world protecters with the glowing white halos that needs. The UN is supposedly there for world problems NOT the British army. We should not be putting our noses into other countries' business in that way. The UN should be.

in my own opinion of course.

But the UN sanctioned the action in Afghanistan and Syria, the British army is an arm of the UN, so yes part of their job is to act on behalf of the UN and police the world. Ignoring the fact that you don't think it is noble to protect civilians of a foreign country.

What do you think about hunting down and killing Al Qaeda operatives? They have proven their threat and capability by attacking the UK and killing our civilians? Do you not think we should try and depose regimes that support and protect the people that attacked us on our own soil, and have threatened to do so again? Is that not protecting this country?

Yes there were political motivations, more so in Iraq when we were lied to and didn't have the support of the UN, and yes not all soldiers are lovely human beings, but they have done a lot to protect this country, regardless of motivation, whether it be protecting British citizens in the Falklands, trying to maintain peace in Ireland, hunting down terrorists in far off lands, or stepping in and acting as firemen and policemen and even ambulance drivers and medics in times of crisis of civil unrest, they have done a lot more than most in keeping this country free. Whilst I don't think armed forces day is necessary, I do think they deserve our respect and thanks for what they do.

If you don't like the politics behind it, blame the politicians.

[21st Century Fox]

And what does that prove? Gadaffi bought arms as well.

So we're altruistic enough to spend almost £2 billion to save the Libyan people but willing to make that money back in arms deals with neighbouring countries to suppress their people?

[Webbo]

So we're altruistic enough to spend almost £2 billion to save the Libyan people but willing to make that money back in arms deals with neighbouring countries to suppress their people?

Well I don't know which countries we've sold arms to so I couldn't comment. I still don't see how this proves we attacked Libya for our own gain.

[MooseBreath]

Sounds a terribly sexist comment to me. I don't see that it matters on an internet site if I were a woman, a man, an insect or an alien hermaphrodite. Still when I read your comments I admit I think you must be a racist, sexist moron but I keep that to myself.

I think you're certainly one of the least intelligent and most nonsensical posters out of the group of regulars. Even shrapnel talks more sense than you. But of course, I keep that to myself.

Also, I'm not racist. People like you seem to assume that anyone who isn't a whimsical soft twat must automatically be racist, whereas in reality your sheltered existence probably dictates that you are actually extremely racist, you're just too blind to realise.

[21st Century Fox]

Well I don't know which countries we've sold arms to so I couldn't comment. I still don't see how this proves we attacked Libya for our own gain.

If I or anyone else could prove it with hard evidence we'd have been locked naked in a holdall a long time ago.

[MikeyT]

I went to the Armed Forced Day at Wollaton Hall in Nottingham last Saturday. Went primarily for photography reasons, but I do have a lot of respect for them too. It wasn't just about the Armed forces of the last 100 years either. It also incorporated re-enactments from the Roundheads and some cavalry based stuff from World War 1. Also commentary about them as well, so as well as the visual aspect of it, there was also the history about it as well being told as it was happening. Got some nice shots as well.

[Guest]

But the UN sanctioned the action in Afghanistan and Syria, the British army is an arm of the UN, so yes part of their job is to act on behalf of the UN and police the world. Ignoring the fact that you don't think it is noble to protect civilians of a foreign country.

What do you think about hunting down and killing Al Qaeda operatives? They have proven their threat and capability by attacking the UK and killing our civilians? Do you not think we should try and depose regimes that support and protect the people that attacked us on our own soil, and have threatened to do so again? Is that not protecting this country?

Yes there were political motivations, more so in Iraq when we were lied to and didn't have the support of the UN, and yes not all soldiers are lovely human beings, but they have done a lot to protect this country, regardless of motivation, whether it be protecting British citizens in the Falklands, trying to maintain peace in Ireland, hunting down terrorists in far off lands, or stepping in and acting as firemen and policemen and even ambulance drivers and medics in times of crisis of civil unrest, they have done a lot more than most in keeping this country free. Whilst I don't think armed forces day is necessary, I do think they deserve our respect and thanks for what they do.

If you don't like the politics behind it, blame the politicians.

The UN is an impotent inadequate bunch of non-decision takers. Britian went in for Britain's govt. reasons. The British army (and the US army ...) are not arms of the U.N..

Nobleness of protecting others through killing others is an interesting idea. Do you feel that you or the British govt have enough inclination or intelligence or impartiality to decide who needs protecting from whom? The victors decide which was the side of the just.

Al Qaeda operatives - they have done so much, we must reduce the rights of our own citizens in order to hunt them down and kill them. We got that guy with the beard in the end didn't we? your argument's logical conclusion is that we should wipe out EVERY country in the middle east (even the civilians) then I guess we should move onto China and the Asians before looking at the eastern european countries. The US has people who have killed our own too. Maybe we can wipe out all of these and be left with the Brits, the scandinavians, the Swiss (but not the bankers) and the Aussies.

You bring up the Irish - were they not similar to the libyans or syrians?

and then you go on about the wonderful soldiers and the wonderful hings they do. Yet earlier you admit they simply follow orders whether those orders are good or bad. If they had orders to shoot Leicester City Fans would you respect that?

I blame the politicians but I also blame the soldiers for being morons.

[Guest]

I think you're certainly one of the least intelligent and most nonsensical posters out of the group of regulars. Even shrapnel talks more sense than you. But of course, I keep that to myself.

Also, I'm not racist. People like you seem to assume that anyone who isn't a whimsical soft twat must automatically be racist, whereas in reality your sheltered existence probably dictates that you are actually extremely racist, you're just too blind to realise.

Your every post shouts RACIST!

I read your posts and wonder how we can be classed as the same species. You seem to have ignored your blatant sexism in your response.