Why I disagree with Help for Heroes

I competely agree with you. Whilst I do feel for those injured whilst in battle they should never have been there in the first place. What gives Britain the right to decide we need to 'fix' other countries, it's not like we are perfect ourself.

Why don't you just drop it with your stupid comments now OP? You are offensive. And don't tell me about freedom of speech, if you had a decent arguement then I wouldn't mind, but you don't. You are stupid and immature and I hope one day you don't need the help of a soldier...Cos he shouldn't help you. But he still would. Because they are Heroes. Go take your silly remarks elsewhere.

You're talking crap. The fundamental is that you're a bit of a prick.

Basically, I just wanted to see if my opinion is, in fact, completely ludicrous, or if it bares credence. By nature, I am far-left in ideology, however my peers find my discussion of this topic "disgusting".

So, why do I disagree with this appeal? Foremost, I believe that anyone who joins this war condones it. Secondly, if one man is to kill another, regardless of circumstance, I see him only as a murderer. Finally, the State sends these people to war, the State should ensure they are comfortable in return for their compliance and effort.

Discuss.

I don't know what Godwins Law is,sorry.

How about somebody who wades into a school full of young children with an automatic rifle and starts shooting indiscriminately. Would you take the opportunity to shoot and kill him or would you ask him to see the error of his ways and to seek help?

Diplomacy with the Taliban? Come on... And how was the warfare barbaric? Unfortunately civilians have died but the rules of engagement have since been tightened which makes it even harder for them to pick out insurgents who meld back into the public. You know, the Taliban don't wear bright pink t-shirts and wave flags... They practically use the petrified civilians around them as shields.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind

It should, but it isn't. Until it is, why shouldn't others make up the difference?

And numbers can say anything. 1 million marched against Iraq, true.


59 million didn't.

And yet despite a vast compendium of human knowledge which the internet has placed – quite literally – at your fingertips, you're nonetheless content to blithely profess ignorance of something rather than spend the half-minute necessary to look it up. If it were half as amusing as it is depressing, I'd be laughing too hard to type this.

I would.

You're completely removing context from the fact that 1 million people felt so passionately that they would take to the streets, does not mean 1 million people disagree with the war. I wasn't at the protest, but I wholly disagreed.

You're completely removing context from the fact that 1 million people felt so passionately that they would take to the streets, does not mean 1 million people disagree with the war. I wasn't at the protest, but I wholly disagreed.

x

Nor does it mean that the majority disagreed with the war. Your argument is sadly flawed.

Fair.

It's worth noting, however, that none of the men who recieve this help would ever call themselves heroes.

YOu would what kill the guy or ask him to change his ways?

What's heroic about being shipped into wars that are not only condemned around the world but also back at home? What's heroic about fighting in wars where you don't understand why you're there, or why it's you who must police the streets you've bombed? What's heroic about fighting in a country that's no threat to you?

"They died for their country"

During the Great wars, 14 year old boys would try to muster up the face of an older man just to enlist into the army. Some were sent back home gutted, and others got their wish running around with rifles because they wanted to join in a great struggle in which the entire country was behind. Most these soldiers nowadays joined the Army Forces for a variety of reasons, but I doubt dying for Queen and country was high on that list. Incidentally, those who have come back seem to be amongst the most mild mannered and well-level headed when it comes to their views on these wars, whereas the 'blogosphere' is filled with keyboard patriots who are one day political scholars and the next day military generals giving expert opinion on why we should/can bomb country X, Y and Z; and yet I doubt they'd enlist to be on those front lines incidentally couldn't be found within a 10mile radius of a recruitment centre!

It's not right to place respect and the title of 'hero' on some purely based on the uniform they wear. What defines them is their persona and character, and this engineered sense of nationalism/patriotism that has inflicted some of us in recent years, where we choose to ignore any relevant and moral context, blindly herald this as that, and so on, undermines some of the most deserved and genuine heroes in the past who gave up their lives whilst not drawing a single shed of blood themselves. Heroes are men, women and children who every individual - regardless of race, gender or background - can bow their head to and recognise the inherent human quality of said person.

That isn't to say none of those serving in the Armed Forces do not deserve to be named as heroes, there are some who are amazingly good-hearted and brave individuals, but a random uniform losing a limb does not make him a hero. He is someone who lost a limb in the war. Fighting wars doesn't make you heroic, it's the choices you make in life and the reasons why that do; it's in the person in you, not what you wear.

Ask him to change his ways. Killing him would solve nothing.

Ahaha, I'm aware of the Nationalist undercurrent apparent on TSR. Don't worry.

Ask him to change his ways. Killing him would solve nothing.