The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Meus
I wouldn't be surprised if most that supported the war couldn't write on a single piece of paper explaining their reasons



And therefore their say in how their country - and thereby their lives - is run should be less valuable than say, yours? Perhaps we should place examination requirements on voting; perhaps, indeed, we should abolish democracy altogether, and put the most intelligent/literate in charge?
I'll briefly go over the three main points.

With regards to supporting the war, soldiers don't usually sign up to the forces to go into a particular war with another specific country; they sign up for a number of reasons and probably hope to be defending the rights and freedom of the many rather than aiding wars such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In terms of murdering, I do agree with what you say, but you've got to bear in mind that again, people are signing up to defend the innocent. If you saw a group of kids kicking the living daylights out of an innocent bystander, you surely wouldn't see it such a bad thing to floor one of them to save the victim. It's considered by many to be an honourable thing to do, but of course, it's subjective.

Finally, when it comes to state assistance, the charity exists partly because the government isn't doing all it should to help and support those soldiers who are fighting or have fought in conflicts in terms of finance, social awareness, re-intergration into society, health and mental state. If the state were providing such support, then chances are, the charity wouldn't have nearly as much to do.
Reply 82
Original post by TimmonaPortella
Nor does it mean that the majority disagreed with the war. Your argument is sadly flawed.

But countless surveys since prove otherwise.

Original post by Drewski
My point was that numbers don't tell the whole story.


And the other point is that you can never expect the public to make an accurate decision - as they're not the ones in possession of the full facts. As it turns out [from HINDSIGHT, things we know now that didn't know then] neither were the Gov, but it is our job to trust that they know what is right, after all, that's why we gave them our vote in the first place.

War and conflict are never wanted, but sometimes they are all that is left. I was in the RAF, I was fortunate in that I never had to see fighting. I hope that the friends of mine who are still in can go through their career without seeing it too, I know that if I were in for 18yrs I'd be hoping that I never see 'active' service.

I understand your point, but the public should at least be considered when the government makes such influential decisions. And diplomacy was not on the minds of those in power before they decided to invade.
Reply 83
Original post by Glenbot3000
Ask him to change his ways. Killing him would solve nothing


Wow you would basically let loads of kids be murdered over that one psychopath. There is no way you could change his mind im pretty sure he would not be thinking right if he is randomly shooting kids in a school.

In my opinion you would be as bad as the killer standing there and allowing it to happen
The life of that psychopath< the lives of the innocent children
Reply 84
Original post by rebecca_george
I HATE help for 'heroes'
these men on the front men know what they are getting in to, the government just wants to glorify the war
and the foot soliders are often( not always) really uneducated i.e STUPID


Troll fail. Help4Heroes is in no way affiliated with the Government.

If you're going to act stupid in an attempt to rile people, at least use vaguely accurate facts.
Just STFU most people dont go into the army to kill people they do it to for pride of service and many want peace.
Knowing many people that actually are fighting in Afghan at the moment and heard their stories, I can understand why some members of the general public may have this view.

H4H is not mainly specialist in obtaining government compensation, but for many members of the military a support network for the soldiers mentally as well as physically. The armed forces personell are relieved this charity will be there to help them as it helps them at the awful moment if god forbid they are injured in conflict as well as their families.

It is not nice out in Afghanistahn, and as I said I have heard terrifying stories of what our armed forces go through everyday to achieve a final better result. The soldiers often join up at a young age, and despite the negative circumstances they are currently in; the Armed forces is still seen as a very respectable career. There are many bonuses such as free housing which is impossible to turn down for many in a recession. You make stronger friendship bonds than in perhaps any other career and potentially travel the world. These are just some things that attract people to the armed forces.

Also when we went to initially Iraq and then Afghan, people assumed it would be over in a few years, not 2015. The government were not prepared for this or the attritional warfare that faced the army, shown by equipment letdowns such as the Land rover. These wars have destroyed the morale of the country therefore it is important that charities such as H4H 'shine a light' to help those that may tragically be forgotten without their help.
Original post by Glenbot3000
But countless surveys since prove otherwise.


countless elections?
I agree, actually. With what you seem to be saying here, at least. The country should be more democratic, democracy should be more direct, localised etc.
However, we have to work by the system we have now. And by that (imperfect, admittedly) proxy, the war was sanctioned by the population.
Reply 88
Takes a brave person to inlist in the forces knowing full well they could die, thats why they are heroes.
Original post by Glenbot3000
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.


Well, look, so am I but the thing is, people who join war don't often condone it. Why is that? Because most people who join the Army don't really understand the implications of war or the reasoning behind it. Most people who don't even fight condone the current wars waged without full knowledge of the facts and I'm not saying I do either. Yes, someone is a murderer but you should be blaming the suits sitting in a comfortable office instead of the people obeying orders. I agree the state should fund people at the moment but reliance on the state should be reduced eventually but that's besides the point. With the present structure at the moment, you're right; the state should help those who have fought for the country.
(edited 13 years ago)
OP is a c***
Reply 91
Original post by Glenbot3000
I understand your point, but the public should at least be considered when the government makes such influential decisions. And diplomacy was not on the minds of those in power before they decided to invade.


They are considered. But then it is weighed up against what's in their best interests. With the facts available at the time the choice appeared to be [gross simplification incoming] a choice between fighting them there, or allowing them to bring the war to us.

As for diplomacy, it was. In Afghanistan they Taliban [at the time 'in charge' of the country] were given a month to hand over the self proclaimed perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, to disband training camps and cease all terrorist support. None of these requests were answered. Indeed, they were roundly ignored.

Iraq is cloudier, but again, ample time was given for diplomacy to work, but it failed.
Reply 92
Original post by thisisnew

Original post by thisisnew
So let's say I save your future son/daughter from a vile pedophile but just happen to kill the attacker in the process you'd see me as a murderer?

As a developed and powerful nation do you not feel like you should help smaller and poorer countries who are being oppressed by brutal dictators and regimes or would you rather cover your ears and be like &quot;lalalla not my problem&quot;?


Still a murderer as you murdered somebody, just that you and whoever's child it was etc would feel it was justified.
Also regarding the bit I have bolded - shouldn't we be places like Palestine? The government doesn't do anything to benefit anybody apart from itself. There is obviously a difference between the government and the military, but people who joined the military after the Afghan and Iraq wars just deserve what they get tbh and I don't see why some may expect special treatment once they are back, or get a whole page in a newspaper if they die. What about all the civilians that die?? They don't even get mentioned by their names, just a total number that died.
Reply 93
Original post by ryan051991
Wow you would basically let loads of kids be murdered over that one psychopath. There is no way you could change his mind im pretty sure he would not be thinking right if he is randomly shooting kids in a school.

In my opinion you would be as bad as the killer standing there and allowing it to happen
The life of that psychopath< the lives of the innocent children


Apprehending someone is an absolutely logical solution. Why have you brandished me a murderer assuming that I'd bystand? The real solution, however, is preventing people from getting into such states of mind.
Reply 94
Original post by Glenbot3000
Apprehending someone is an absolutely logical solution. Why have you brandished me a murderer assuming that I'd bystand? The real solution, however, is preventing people from getting into such states of mind.


Problem is, we do not live in a perfect world.
Reply 95
Original post by Glenbot3000
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.


You realise war was not created by the state? Its a human creation and would continue regardless of a state.
Original post by Glenbot3000
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 completely agree, they're volunteering and putting active effort into taking part in illegal and despicable wars. I can't see why people who kill others and cause destruction in countries far away, should ever be called heroes nor supported. It's one of these moronic traditions society still blindly holds, even though it's devoid of logic. It's just dressed up as 'patriotism' and all that brainwashing rhetoric; nothing real of course.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Glenbot3000
Apprehending someone is an absolutely logical solution. Why have you brandished me a murderer assuming that I'd bystand? The real solution, however, is preventing people from getting into such states of mind.


You murdered them by not stopping the killer. Your actions led to more deaths; of innocents, of those who were doing no harm to anyone else rather than he who was clearly starting the situation.

We should prevent people getting into such states of mind? How, exactly, should we do so? enlighten me.
(I'll for now ignore the self righteous *******ry displayed by this attitude)
Reply 98
Original post by Glenbot3000
Apprehending someone is an absolutely logical solution. Why have you brandished me a murderer assuming that I'd bystand? The real solution, however, is preventing people from getting into such states of mind.


How would you go around apprehending this guy with a gun?

Ow yeah dude what a great idea we could spend loads of money on helping these psychopaths get to a better state of mind, or even better start a charity for it!
you could donate to that and not H4H since you dont like the h4h
Reply 99
Original post by ANARCHY__
Well, look, so am I but the thing is, people who join war don't often condone it. Why is that? Because most people who join the Army don't really understand the implications of war or the reasoning behind it. Most people who don't even fight condone the current wars waged without full knowledge of the facts and I'm not saying I do either. Yes, someone is a murderer but you should be blaming the suits sitting in a comfortable office instead of the people obeying orders. I agree the state should fund people at the moment but reliance on the state should be reduced eventually but that's besides the point. With the present structure at the moment, you're right; the state should help those who have fought for the country.

I tried to ward away from full-on politics-bashing, but I have to agree. Armistice Day should be just as much about showing anger at incompetent governments as it is remembering dead soldiers.

Original post by Drewski
Problem is, we do not live in a perfect world.

Exactly my point. We should correct it.