The Student Room Group

Arrogant military children

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
Original post by Jack93o
what do you mean? like accidently?

well look at it another way, if the doctor done nothing and just left the patient as they were, then they would've died anyway. Inevitably theres a risk with each operation :dontknow:


Doctors kill people through stupidity and incompetence all the time.
Reply 41
Original post by Drewski
That's kinda my point. In the UK military there are around 250,000 people doing all manner of jobs. Yet they're all judged by the same standard, those ~20,000 guys who, by necessity, have a job far removed from any other. It's no more ridiculous than judging all postmen by the minority who steal, or teachers by the minority who have relationships with kids. Threads like these help perpetuate the myth that everyone in the Forces is an identical clone with the exact same mindsets and prejudices.

So don't even begin to throw the naive label at me, you're the one showing up your idiocy and closemindedness.

Regardless of your point, you knew what he meant and took it a different way. That is being intentionally naive to push your agenda.

I do agree, though.

Original post by Clip
Doctors kill people through stupidity and incompetence all the time.

The difference is intent. A soldier intends to kill people, a doctor does not. Also, I'd like to see you do a better job, kiddo.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 42
Original post by liamb109
Regardless of your point, you knew what he meant and took it a different way. That is being intentionally naive to push your agenda.

I do agree, though.


The difference is intent. A soldier intends to kill people, a doctor does not. Also, I'd like to see you do a better job, kiddo.


Did I? I was an Officer in the RAF. My friends were also officers. My experience of the military is vastly removed from the "chav infantry" stereotype of a small portion of the Army, against whom all members of the military are judged. We all signed up for duty at or near the front line, it's true, but our aims and jobs there are not at all similar. The sooner we can stop the ridiculous "military= army squaddie" stereotype, the better.
Well I've found that many people who have 'important or wealthy' parents tend to develop their own sense of self importance, which is completely nonsensical.
Original post by danny111
Your dad's almost an Admiral? That's pretty cool.


While I'm proud at my dad and his accomplishments(he's 42 and a captain) the military is still a very pretentious world.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
Original post by EffieFlowers
Well I've found that many people who have 'important or wealthy' parents tend to develop their own sense of self importance, which is completely nonsensical.


I've noticed this. I used to get laughed at because my dad works in a fish factory.:rolleyes:
Original post by OU Student
I've noticed this. I used to get laughed at because my dad works in a fish factory.:rolleyes:


My dad's a builder and I remember some of my old friends used to act quite snide about it. I honestly don't give a damn what a person's parents do for a living!
I think I can imagine some whiny little child making threats on Xbox that their dad is an 'SAS commando' or whatever so it's easy to assume that if the child happens to actually have some military connection they'd big themselves up more and have a bigger ego. I guess I have a more humble direct military connection, as in my mother and father were, and met, during their stints as a medic and a mechanic respectively in the RAF. That said, my grandparents had more of a soldierish role, especially my grandpa in the second world war. I don't brag. I'd imagine some of these pricks boasting are just butthurt that they're parent/parents aren't there because they're in duty.

Seriously? People think you intend to kill if you join the military? It's about keeping order and I'll use raiding pirates on trade ships as an example. Doesn't always have to be about killing ragheads or gooks or whatever lingo you prefer. If the pirates wish to screw with our trade then let them get a bullet in the head. It's not always about state vs state you know. It's about keeping the chaotic rabble down.
Reply 48
Original post by Octohedral
Fundamentally you can't have a country without armed forces, whether or not they are used.

Of course this doesn't make everyone who joins up worthy of respect, but comparing them to doctors is a false argument - they are simply different jobs. Not everyone can be a doctor - does this make taxi drivers, teachers and bin men any less essential? You could even argue that soldiers save lives in the long term, but that's a matter of politics, not of the individual soldier. Regardless of whether or not you believe in the current war (and remember these 'shepherd fanatics' have co-ordinated one of the greatest breaches of American security in years and killed 3000 people in the heart of one of their safest cities), there are two main reasons to respect the Armed Forces;

1. Brainwashing. The powers that be need people to voluntarily go and die. Most people don't want to voluntarily go and die. The solution is to create a culture of camaraderie and patriotism that makes these people feel there is a greater cause. By humouring their dependents you are preventing the need for conscription, thus saving yourself.

2. Even if some chav decides to join the army because they want a gun, when they get there every single one of them goes through a kind of Hell. Their training is physically and mentally rigorous, and what they face in Afghanistan is worthy of respect in itself. Of course that doesn't excuse the few who delight in torturing or killing, but most don't. How many armies in the history of the world have been forbidden from returning fire at people who are trying to kill them unless they know there are no civillians in the building?

So yes, those children may be arrogant, but they are children, and they don't know if their parents will be alive in a week's time. I would just let them be arrogant.


Do you actually believe that the Afghans/Talibans did any of what you seem to accuse them of doing? I thought their main crime was that of harbouring Al qaeda and letting them establish training camps? I have not yet heard of an Afghan being among the ring leaders or perpertrating any of the international terrorism committed by Al Qaeda. The Afghans seem only to have sheltered their Arab friends and allies who fought with them to send off the Soviets in the 80s and nothing more.
Reply 49
I find it amusing that they have the cheek to command respect, theyve done the square route of **** all for their country... When theyve been on the front line then i might have a wee bit of respect for them untill then however they rank somewhere between tinkers and chavs...
Reply 50
oh and just arguing the toss here but what if their mummies/daddies are army doctors.... yeah think about that one!
I've never met an "arrogant military child" :frown:

Original post by cl_steele
oh and just arguing the toss here but what if their mummies/daddies are army doctors.... yeah think about that one!


conspiracy-keanu.jpg
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by cl_steele
oh and just arguing the toss here but what if their mummies/daddies are army doctors.... yeah think about that one!


Very good point.
Original post by bkeevin
Do you actually believe that the Afghans/Talibans did any of what you seem to accuse them of doing? I thought their main crime was that of harbouring Al qaeda and letting them establish training camps? I have not yet heard of an Afghan being among the ring leaders or perpertrating any of the international terrorism committed by Al Qaeda. The Afghans seem only to have sheltered their Arab friends and allies who fought with them to send off the Soviets in the 80s and nothing more.


My point was that the poster seems to consider everyone from the Middle East to be some kind of backwards shepherd, wheras that's all American propoganda - all three groups are resourceful and intelligent despite not having the technology of the West.

However, I apologise for merging the groups in to one. I did know the difference - I was just doing it for the sake of simplicity in that argument - but I can't pretent to have a detailed knowledge of the politics of this particular war. I was just reflecting on my own experience of the military in general.
Reply 54
Original post by Octohedral
Fundamentally you can't have a country without armed forces, whether or not they are used.


Plenty of countries don't have an Armed Force protecting them.

A country doesn't need an army. Japan doesn't have one (it has a Defence Force which isn't the same thing).
Original post by sabian92
Plenty of countries don't have an Armed Force protecting them.

A country doesn't need an army. Japan doesn't have one (it has a Defence Force which isn't the same thing).


The JSDF is an army - it's used to defend the country and in so called 'international peace keeping operations', pretty much the same as ours.

I don't agree with everything our army does, but I also don't believe the world is stable enough just yet for a country to live safely without Armed Forces. Having them but not using them is another matter. My post was about the individual soldier - you may disagree, but in my opinion if that particular soldier didn't fire the gun someone else would. The blood is on the hands of the politicians.
Reply 56
Original post by sabian92
Plenty of countries don't have an Armed Force protecting them.

A country doesn't need an army. Japan doesn't have one (it has a Defence Force which isn't the same thing).


If by "plenty" you mean "3".... :rolleyes:



Actually, very very few countries - if any - have no military protecting them, even neutral states. Ireland, for example, is under the UK's area of responsibility for QRA, ie if a plane was attacking them the RAF would respond. Switzerland has a more than able armed forces, as does Norway, despite their neutrality. Even isolated nations - New Zealand, for example - have armed forces of reasonable strength. Yes they're smaller than some nations, but they still exist.

Even the wiki page List of countries without armed forces states that all countries on the globe bar Costa Rica, Liechtenstein and Vatican City have some kind of defence agreement.

As said, the notion that one day the globe will be peaceful enough for there to be no need for that kind of security is a noble one. But we're not there yet, no point pretending otherwise.
Reply 57
I only know five people in the army. All of them are complete idiots. I know not everyone in the army is like that, but it scares me that these people are being given a gun.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending