Why I disagree with Help for Heroes

Original post by Glenbot3000

The people in the armed forces are there to kill and maim others.

Once again your lack of understanding of what it is the Armed Forces do is evident. Without proper understanding of their missions and the way they conduct their missions what hope do you have of understanding their intent and the intent of the Gov in sending them? Let alone the individual intent of the men and women out there.

The job of the Armed Forces isn't and has never been to "kill and maim". There's a good reason why the then Defence Secretary said that he hoped British troops would be able to start and end their deployment in Afghanistan "without firing a single bullet". The job is not to inflict harm, but to prevent greater harm. They do, however, have to be able to use violence -in as small a way as is possible- in order to do the job. Soldiers would far rather not have to use their rifles [if for no other reason than cleaning them is a ball ache], but do so in the interest of self preservation while the larger mission goes on.

If you're going to involve yourself in a debate like this at least come to some basic understanding of what the Armed Forces do and what they're there for - and not from a propagandist or hate-fuelled angle - otherwise your arguments will never be taken seriously.

Reply 164

SHABANA

16

Original post by thisisnew

Who wouldn't see it as justified? If the scenario I pointed out really happened and some guy killed the psycho saving the lives of countless children would you REALLY be like "but yeah he's a murderer no better than the gunman". Really?

No we shouldn't be in places like Palestine because that is in no way comparable. That's a border dispute between two countries not two countries under the thumb of a brutal dictatorship & you'd also be naive and stupid to think Palestine are "innocent" for a lack of a better word.

What kind of special treatment do you believe the returning soldiers expect? They are not divas who demand 24h attention, fancy cars and a mansion. They thought in the interests of our country and government so it's not unreasonable for them to expect some sort of help when they are severely injured on the job. As said earlier none of the soldiers attempt to glorify their actions.

Also this quote:

I'm not saying that it wouldn't be seen as justified by the majority - I'm saying at the end of the day if person X kills person Y then they are a murderer. And there will always be a minority who think it isn't justified, using the paedophile as an example, people who think that it is a mental disorder or whatever that can't be helped.

Well the whole Israel/Palestine thing is hardly an equal dispute is it? So why don't we go over there and help even things out? If were going to butt in to other countries' business we should do it in as many places as possible. And with the whole Iraq situation - I think you'll find many people preferred it back when Saddam was there regardless of what he was like it was better than their current situation.

In answer to the quote - the drug users and prositutes got themselves in that situation. In an ideal world with unlimited resources we could help everyone but resources are limited so should be used to help people who are in no way to blame for their illness or whatever. Same goes for people who have drank themselves to the point where they need a new liver etc.

At the end of the day these are charities, so nobody is forced in to giving them money.

Reply 165

Craiky1506

9

Original post by Cybele

Sounds like you don't have a clue what "the cause" really is.

Please, enlighten me.

I was under the impression it helped & supported soldiers who had been wounded since September 11th 2001, I don't know - maybe I'm completely wrong.

Reply 166

Original post by Craiky1506

Please, enlighten me.

I was under the impression it helped & supported soldiers who had been wounded since September 11th 2001, I don't know - maybe I'm completely wrong.

You should read the 3rd message, not just the first. "We do not seek to criticise or be political". They can rise above it, why are you too petty to do the same?

Reply 167

Cybele

14

Original post by Craiky1506

Please, enlighten me.

I was under the impression it helped & supported soldiers who had been wounded since September 11th 2001, I don't know - maybe I'm completely wrong.

Your reasons for not 'agreeing' with Help for Heroes were 1) "I disagree with the wars" and 2) You don't see servicemen as heroes.

My response would be this -
1) tell me when Help for Heroes has actively supported any war? Like most charities, they are a-political and the money simply goes towards helping servicemen who's lives have been pretty much devastated by conflict.

2) What the charity calls itself is really irrelevant. They use the term 'hero' because of the nature of their job and, to quote their website, 'to show these extraordinary young men and women that they are cared for by us.'

So, Help for Heroes is there to provide a bit of relief and help to those who have been seriously injured and maimed in conflict, it is not there to garner support for the government nor the wars it gets involved with.

Reply 168

Doubledog

8

If you send them money you have no way of knowing whether it will go to a genuine "hero". For example, what about a soldier who is run over by a truck while he is blind drunk and he loses an arm in the accident. Is he a hero just because he happened to have the accident in Afghanistan and not in Leeds?

Reply 169

OP

The general consensus seems to be that even though Help for Heroes doesn't support the war, there's nothing wrong with them aiding the people fighting in it.

Is it me, or is this not paradoxical?

(to elaborate, I'm saying on one hand they're condeming it, on the other they are directly supporting it by oiling the cogs of warfare and helping people fight for something they do not wish to be in existence in the first place)

To use an outlandish analogy (this seems to be the trend around here): would you pay to support the rehabilitation of a rapist injured by vigilantes?

Edit: Or to reuse an old gem: would you pay to rehabilitate a man who had just gone into a school and massacred a few hundred students, but was shot and maimed by a police officer?

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 170

Cybele

14

Original post by Glenbot3000

The general consensus seems to be that even though Help for Heroes doesn't support the war, there's nothing wrong with them aiding the people fighting in it.

Is it me, or is this not paradoxical?

It's you.

Original post by Glenbot3000

To use an outlandish analogy (this seems to be the trend around here): would you pay to support the rehabilitation of a rapist injured by vigilantes?

Not only outlandish, but also unfair and kind of offensive. What have rapists got to do with Help for Heores? How are you comparing them to servicemen?

Reply 171

OP

Original post by SatanIsAwesome

To stop those people killing and maiming 10 times as many other people.....

~3,000 American civilians + 300 British civilians < ~300,000 civilians killed in Iraqi and Afghani conflicts.

I think the shoe is MOST DEFINITELY on the other foot.

Original post by Drewski

The job of the Armed Forces isn't and has never been to "kill and maim".

OK, I apologise. This isn't the sole purpose of the Armed Forces. There's also intimidation, political self-righteousness and economic benefits I forgot to mention.

To reiterate, I never intended for it to be interpreted as their sole purpose, but regardless, that is what they do.

Reply 172

Original post by Glenbot3000

The general consensus seems to be that even though Help for Heroes doesn't support the war, there's nothing wrong with them aiding the people fighting in it.

Is it me, or is this not paradoxical?

(to elaborate, I'm saying on one hand they're condeming it, on the other they are directly supporting it by oiling the cogs of warfare and helping people fight for something they do not wish to be in existence in the first place)

To use an outlandish analogy (this seems to be the trend around here): would you pay to support the rehabilitation of a rapist injured by vigilantes?

Edit: Or to reuse an old gem: would you pay to rehabilitate a man who had just gone into a school and massacred a few hundred students, but was shot and maimed by a police officer?

The difference is that in none of your analogies are the people getting hurt being asked to do this by their country. That you disagree with the Gov's policy is evident and not of debate in this thread, but the men being supported by this charity have been injured on the country's behalf and, in most cases, are now incapable of living a normal post-services life due to their injuries. It in this situation that some people feel the need to help out.

Again, the charity is a non-governmental organisation, any contributions are entirely voluntary, they do not ask you to condone what they're doing. If you don't like it, you don't support it, it's not a big deal.

Reply 173

OP

Original post by Cybele

Not only outlandish, but also unfair and kind of offensive. What have rapists got to do with Help for Heores? How are you comparing them to servicemen?

Read earlier in the thread, and you'll get why I'm making such comments.

I am in no way comparing servicemen to rapists, and you're right, it has very little to do with Help for Heroes, but it helps reason my argument. The logic for this situation has been applied to another, and alas, you cannot answer?

Reply 174

tieyourmotherdown

14

Funnily enough, you describe yourself as being far-left, however alot of people who are far left would subscribe to utilitarianism, the idea which essentially boils down to the fact that if potential pleasure or happiness outweighs potential pain, it is worth it. It makes war justifiable as the cause is to ensure happiness and pleasure of those who are being defended.

I'm not attacking you, but seeing any killing as murder (i.e the idea that we all have basic rights which should not be violated under any circumstances) is quite a clasically liberal idea, which isn't left wing at all.

Reply 175

Original post by Glenbot3000

OK, I apologise. This isn't the sole purpose of the Armed Forces. There's also intimidation, political self-righteousness and economic benefits I forgot to mention.
To reiterate, I never intended for it to be interpreted as their sole purpose, but regardless, that is what they do.

You have a bigotted, narrow minded and entirely childish view of the Armed Forces fuelled by nothing else than your hatred of anything to do with power.

Not only that, but your comments will, regardless of intent, cause serious insult to members of the Armed Forces who'd question why someone of 17yrs - living in the safety and freedom of an open society - and who has never dared put their life on the line for a cause greater than themself feels they have the right to question the way they life their life.

Reply 176

Original post by Glenbot3000

Read earlier in the thread, and you'll get why I'm making such comments.

I am in no way comparing servicemen to rapists, and you're right, it has very little to do with Help for Heroes, but it helps reason my argument. The logic for this situation has been applied to another, and alas, you cannot answer?

I answered it and explained how it was a rubbish argument.

Reply 177

OP

Original post by Drewski

The difference is that in none of your analogies are the people getting hurt being asked to do this by their country. That you disagree with the Gov's policy is evident and not of debate in this thread, but the men being supported by this charity have been injured on the country's behalf and, in most cases, are now incapable of living a normal post-services life due to their injuries. It in this situation that some people feel the need to help out.

I'm not talking of my beliefs, I'm talking of the beliefs portrayed by the charity. By not promoting warfare, logically it must disagree with it. And they can't/shouldn't have a neutral standpoint on an issue which they are in the centre of.

Reply 178