Should the Armed Forces be glorified? Are they really heroes?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Drewski
You'd be surprised... It's not just limited to this site; the media does it too.
Agreed.
However, you cannot deny there is a gross double standard in the world. For every occasion when the world says "oh no, don't get involved, let the country sort themselves out" there are equal occasions - and sometimes the exact same situations - where many say "oh, but you must go in to stop this!". Syria is a prime example of this, as was Libya. Western Governments now stand in a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" position that is impossible.
I understand the mindset, but I like to think I don't position myself alongside the myopic fanboys of this world. I have no problem criticising when criticism is due - and have done on this site on many an occasion - and I do not shirk from it when it is called for. However, I do believe it is valid and worthwhile to offer the other side of the argument, especially when so many on this site are the 'fanboy' type for the other side.
I will say, however, that my views do not come from the media, but rather my personal experience of the Forces, my friends and colleagues and their experiences.
Finally, every human has the same capacity to make mistakes. Mistakes are correspondingly huger if that human has weapons at their disposal. It's not right, it's not fair and it is imperfect. Every death, regardless of circumstances (ie, whether they were the intended target or not), is a tragedy and I deeply wish there were other ways of dealing with it.
Agreed.
However, you cannot deny there is a gross double standard in the world. For every occasion when the world says "oh no, don't get involved, let the country sort themselves out" there are equal occasions - and sometimes the exact same situations - where many say "oh, but you must go in to stop this!". Syria is a prime example of this, as was Libya. Western Governments now stand in a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" position that is impossible.
I understand the mindset, but I like to think I don't position myself alongside the myopic fanboys of this world. I have no problem criticising when criticism is due - and have done on this site on many an occasion - and I do not shirk from it when it is called for. However, I do believe it is valid and worthwhile to offer the other side of the argument, especially when so many on this site are the 'fanboy' type for the other side.
I will say, however, that my views do not come from the media, but rather my personal experience of the Forces, my friends and colleagues and their experiences.
Finally, every human has the same capacity to make mistakes. Mistakes are correspondingly huger if that human has weapons at their disposal. It's not right, it's not fair and it is imperfect. Every death, regardless of circumstances (ie, whether they were the intended target or not), is a tragedy and I deeply wish there were other ways of dealing with it.
While I appreciate and agree with what you say (much of it is the same as in my post) You don't seem to be arguing in favour of your side of the story as I thought you would. I understand that what I wrote was fairly dense, but i'm very surprised if your only justification for the tragedies discussed is that humans make mistakes. If you are currently typing a longer response forgive my lack of patience.
Original post by Drewski
I find your assertation that this happens to everyone as laughable and wrong. I find your accusation that no good comes about as a result of our involvement overseas as insulting and inaccurate.
That is not to say there is no bad, but to ignore the good and only present the bad is to be guilty of misinformation. No story is one-sided.
That is not to say there is no bad, but to ignore the good and only present the bad is to be guilty of misinformation. No story is one-sided.
You think the drone strike accusations are wrong?
Original post by the mezzil
You're equally as bad for defending a fascist. It was pure spiteful and sick hate messages against men and women who have done him/ her no wrong and you know it. Moreover, that person is grossly misinformed and quite frankly does not realise the extent to which how dangerous the world really is. Perhaps that person was not around during 9/12 or 7/7 or maybe even has so short of a memory that they cant even remember what happened at woolwich a few months ago. We need an armed forces to protect us from these terrorits, and we need the brave men and women who serve their country. They deserve respect. They do not need some sick troll whos probably on 16 years old spewing out their vile hate messages and how they dont deserve respect since they are brainwashed idiots, and just stopping short of calling them baby killers and murders.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Good god. Do you actually back up anything you say or is it all emotional nonsense.
Original post by pol pot noodles
That's a bit of a silly point. Why would anyone do any full-time career job if they weren't getting paid, even if they loved doing it?
why is it silly? it means that anyone who wouldn't be in the army if they got no compensation whatsoever for their efforts is not primarily doing it for the good of the public. There's nothing wrong with that but I wouldn't call that so selfless. Anyway there will be people out there working for nothing in jobs they love, eg. David Beckham was giving his all pay to charity by the time he retired.
Original post by badatgow
While I appreciate and agree with what you say (much of it is the same as in my post) You don't seem to be arguing in favour of your side of the story as I thought you would. I understand that what I wrote was fairly dense, but i'm very surprised if your only justification for the tragedies discussed is that humans make mistakes. If you are currently typing a longer response forgive my lack of patience.
What more of a side is there? Sometimes we feel a moral obligation to get involved (or whatever cause) and there is no way you can engage in conflict without collateral damage. In the case of Afghanistan specifically, when you engage in a war against a non-regular (but fiendishly clever) Army with a regular Army with regular, strict and rigid rules the opposition will quickly figure out all the ways to make your side lose. Hiding among the civilian population, using human shields, planting indiscriminate weaponry that will blow up the first person to walk past... I have seen all these being used.
I get that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but without the good intentions, what else do we have?
Yes, our Forces did badly out there (though I'd say that 99.9% of the drone strikes was down to the US, as we only had about 3 aircraft) but they also did some great things. rebuilding the Kajaki hydro electric dam, training the Army, Police, Air Force, building schools, hospitals and mosques, getting aid to the parts of the country that hadn't been reached by charities.
Would it have been easier for us to stay out of it? Of course. But we as humans also feel a desire for self preservation. We had that people in the country (though not of the country) were learning the skills needed to attack us in our own country. If a politician - or a soldier - is given the choice of taking the fight to someone, or allowing the fight to come to you, they'll pick the first one every time.
Original post by SnoochToTheBooch
why is it silly? it means that anyone who wouldn't be in the army if they got no compensation whatsoever for their efforts is not primarily doing it for the good of the public. There's nothing wrong with that but I wouldn't call that so selfless. Anyway there will be people out there working for nothing in jobs they love, eg. David Beckham was giving his all pay to charity by the time he retired.
Using someone who's personal wealth is listed as being in the hundreds of millions of pounds is a tad unfair.
I very much doubt you'd find anyone willing to be a policeman or fireman if they got no pay.
I feel that the police do more on a day to day basis of protecting us, yet a large number of people are against the police rather than proud of them, which is wrong. Maybe the public are so protective of their soldiers as an act of patriotism. Just like many are protective of the royal family. I don't believe that someone is brave for training for and doing a job that they probably didn't have much of an idea of what it actually entailed other than the media (in the same way that doctors are assumed to be lovely people who dedicate their life to help people) but I do believe that the soldiers are in a job which is more prone to the opportunity of proving bravery, thus achieving a stereotype of the job. I definitely think those who risk their lives for civilians or colleagues deserve the glorification but perhaps this shouldn't be extended to all soldiers
Original post by SnoochToTheBooch
why is it silly? it means that anyone who wouldn't be in the army if they got no compensation whatsoever for their efforts is not primarily doing it for the good of the public. There's nothing wrong with that but I wouldn't call that so selfless. Anyway there will be people out there working for nothing in jobs they love, eg. David Beckham was giving his all pay to charity by the time he retired.
David Beckham can afford to do that, he's worth about £200 million and all of his lavish expenses were being covered by PSG.
The typical teenage soldier signing up has more change down the back of their sofa than cash in their bank account. Not even the most patriotic person in the country is going to sign up for free under those circumstances. Soldiers have bills to pay, families to feed and post-Armed Forces futures to worry about.
No, sorry, but your logic is dubious.
I don't think that the armed forces as a whole should be glorified, particularly not in cases where the wars being fought have nothing to do with our freedom, or our country's rights.
But individual soldiers? Absolutely deserve respect and recognition for the job that they do. They train hard, and while we may not be fighting one now, if we ever were to be forced into fighting a defensive war, they would be the ones risking their lives to keep us as safe as possible.
But individual soldiers? Absolutely deserve respect and recognition for the job that they do. They train hard, and while we may not be fighting one now, if we ever were to be forced into fighting a defensive war, they would be the ones risking their lives to keep us as safe as possible.
Original post by Drewski
What more of a side is there? Sometimes we feel a moral obligation to get involved (or whatever cause) and there is no way you can engage in conflict without collateral damage. In the case of Afghanistan specifically, when you engage in a war against a non-regular (but fiendishly clever) Army with a regular Army with regular, strict and rigid rules the opposition will quickly figure out all the ways to make your side lose. Hiding among the civilian population, using human shields, planting indiscriminate weaponry that will blow up the first person to walk past... I have seen all these being used.
Human shields are a funny one now that you mention them. There was a village in afghanistan where a relative was working, and it was fairly close to a military base. A squad of US soldiers came to the village asking for a particular man who had been making speeches in the mosque about how the village should refuse to share supplies etc with the soldiers because they were invaders etc. etc. When the man saw the squad of soldiers he ran towards his house and his family and the squad pursued him with their weapons ready. He hid behind his wife and his children and tried to plead but the soldiers obviously didn't understand what he was saying. They shot him and killed him, one of his children and injured his wife. When surrounded and questioned by the people, they informed them that the man was a "terrorist", a "radical extremist" and "it's not our fault he used human shields." The locals were furious but they knew better than to get violent, the entire population would be wiped out in under a day if they did.
Granted these were US soldiers and not UK soldiers, but the point stands that the "strict rigid rules" of the western armies are considered a joke when in the warzone where there's opportunities to kill some sand ni**ers.
Original post by Drewski
I get that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but without the good intentions, what else do we have?
Yes, our Forces did badly out there (though I'd say that 99.9% of the drone strikes was down to the US, as we only had about 3 aircraft) but they also did some great things. rebuilding the Kajaki hydro electric dam, training the Army, Police, Air Force, building schools, hospitals and mosques, getting aid to the parts of the country that hadn't been reached by charities.
Yes, our Forces did badly out there (though I'd say that 99.9% of the drone strikes was down to the US, as we only had about 3 aircraft) but they also did some great things. rebuilding the Kajaki hydro electric dam, training the Army, Police, Air Force, building schools, hospitals and mosques, getting aid to the parts of the country that hadn't been reached by charities.
No doubt there has been some benefit to the manpower provided, although in the grand scheme of things it's not a massive deal. The assistance was still welcomed though, admittedly.
Original post by Drewski
Would it have been easier for us to stay out of it? Of course. But we as humans also feel a desire for self preservation. We had that people in the country (though not of the country) were learning the skills needed to attack us in our own country. If a politician - or a soldier - is given the choice of taking the fight to someone, or allowing the fight to come to you, they'll pick the first one every time.
As always, there will be nutters in a country trying to "attack" other countries. That's not appropriate justification to go to war with the entire nation unless you are 100% certain you can wipe out the entire threat while not exacerbating the problem further. Frankly, more people in these regions are likely to harbor anti-west sentiments than before, where it was just people with grudges against the west for their involvement in various aspects of the partition etc. Don't you think if all the trillions of pounds Britain has spent on the war were instead spent on maximizing homeland security and preventing as many attacks as physically possible the entire world would be better off? Locals shouldn't be able to be converted and do nonsense in the streets of london (see woolwich.) Spend a few billion on active surveillance of the extremist idiots and their cronies and keep everyone safe.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by badatgow
Human shields are a funny one now that you mention them. There was a village in afghanistan where a relative was working, and it was fairly close to a military base. A squad of US soldiers came to the village asking for a particular man who had been making speeches in the mosque about how the village should refuse to share supplies etc with the soldiers because they were invaders etc. etc. When the man saw the squad of soldiers he ran towards his house and his family and the squad pursued him with their weapons ready. He hid behind his wife and his children and tried to plead but the soldiers obviously didn't understand what he was saying. They shot him and killed him, one of his children and injured his wife. When surrounded and questioned by the people, they informed them that the man was a "terrorist", a "radical extremist" and "it's not our fault he used human shields." The locals were furious but they knew better than to get violent, the entire population would be wiped out in under a day if they did.
I'm not even going to begin to defend or excuse the actions of the US Forces. How can you defend the indefensible? Their rules of engagement and training are very different to the British and always - but always - cause more problems than they solve. It's no coincidence that almost every incident of the style you talk of there was caused by Americans... "Letting the side down" is an understatement...
No doubt there has been some benefit to the manpower provided, although in the grand scheme of things it's not a massive deal. The assistance was still welcomed though, admittedly.
As always, there will be nutters in a country trying to "attack" other countries. That's not appropriate justification to go to war with the entire nation unless you are 100% certain you can wipe out the entire threat while not exacerbating the problem further. Frankly, more people in these regions are likely to harbor anti-west sentiments than before, where it was just people with grudges against the west for their involvement in various aspects of the partition etc.
As always, there will be nutters in a country trying to "attack" other countries. That's not appropriate justification to go to war with the entire nation unless you are 100% certain you can wipe out the entire threat while not exacerbating the problem further. Frankly, more people in these regions are likely to harbor anti-west sentiments than before, where it was just people with grudges against the west for their involvement in various aspects of the partition etc.
Well, you might not think it a massive deal, but I think it's important that if we go in somewhere we give them the tools to make society better, to provide power, education and security for themselves.
And yes, very easy to say now that the problem was massively underestimated. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Original post by Al-Mudaari
Well, considering they're one of the biggest terrorists (depends who you ask) the world has ever seen, I'd have to say no.
Thats a pretty scummy thing to say.
I once argued with some one I imagine you would like who said they're terrorists killing innocent muslims.
I never knew innocent people shot first.
Either way, they're heroes. There should be no debate to that
Original post by Drewski
I'm not even going to begin to defend or excuse the actions of the US Forces. How can you defend the indefensible? Their rules of engagement and training are very different to the British and always - but always - cause more problems than they solve. It's no coincidence that almost every incident of the style you talk of there was caused by Americans... "Letting the side down" is an understatement...
Agreed. Perhaps also due to the relative proportions of american soldiers to british in deployment there would be many fewer cases of similar actions overall.
Original post by Drewski
Well, you might not think it a massive deal, but I think it's important that if we go in somewhere we give them the tools to make society better, to provide power, education and security for themselves.
And yes, very easy to say now that the problem was massively underestimated. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
And yes, very easy to say now that the problem was massively underestimated. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
I suppose it's fair to say that while people may enlist with the right intentions such as those you mention, when reality kicks in and people are in those volatile areas it becomes easy to forget what you originally believe in.
To conclude (9am exam, sorry) I do not believe the armed forces of today should be glorified. However, in the event of a scenario occurring where war is waged justly and for a real benefit, and when that benefit is officially achieved I will be more than happy to praise the armed forces. Unfortunately I do not see that scenario happening in the foreseeable future.
Original post by berry94
Either way, they're heroes. There should be no debate to that
Yes, there should.
Hero is not a title bestowed "just because", it is a title earned. There are some heroes in the Forces - reading citations for any of a number of gallantry medals will prove as much - just as there are some heroes in the Fire Service, Police Force, Ambulance Service and general population, but noone is a hero just because they wear a uniform.
Original post by badatgow
To conclude (9am exam, sorry) I do not believe the armed forces of today should be glorified. However, in the event of a scenario occurring where war is waged justly and for a real benefit, and when that benefit is officially achieved I will be more than happy to praise the armed forces. Unfortunately I do not see that scenario happening in the foreseeable future.
I don't think the 'armed forces' generically should be lauded as anything. It is the people within them that can earn the plaudits on an individual (or crew) basis and genuinely heroic actions can take place even in conflicts that are, as a whole, dubious in nature.
Heroes were those men that died In Normandy in 1944.
I'm a bit schizo on this issues. On the one side I love war films. Band of Brothers ranks among my top series ever. And yet when people say modern day soldiers are heroes, I just cannot agree. If Britain was actually attacked and they decided to take up arms, that would have my deepest respect. But I can't see someone a hero who kills people in a war that I detest.
Does that mean there are no heroes currently in the British Army? No. I am sure there are guys there who have risked their lives to protect fellow soldiers, when they didn't have to.
I'm a bit schizo on this issues. On the one side I love war films. Band of Brothers ranks among my top series ever. And yet when people say modern day soldiers are heroes, I just cannot agree. If Britain was actually attacked and they decided to take up arms, that would have my deepest respect. But I can't see someone a hero who kills people in a war that I detest.
Does that mean there are no heroes currently in the British Army? No. I am sure there are guys there who have risked their lives to protect fellow soldiers, when they didn't have to.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Drewski
noone is a hero just because they wear a uniform.
noone is a hero just because they wear a uniform.
Generally as a rule though, that works, because most heroes do wear uniforms
Original post by Miracle Day
You think the drone strike accusations are wrong?
They certainly are, if you're looking at British drone strikes. I can tell you the precise numbers if you like, and could spend hours dissecting all the ridiculous misinformation and inaccuracies peddled by Drone Wars UK and their ilk.
I can also explain at length why some of the numbers are awkward and difficult to be exact about, and why some of the information remains heavily classified.
The UK's drone operators are extremely good, very highly trained, and astonishingly restrained at times. In about 350-400 strikes, guess how many have caused civilian casualties?
Original post by badatgow
I have seen the devastation caused by drone strikes with my own eyes. I have lost family members (British citizens and passport holders who just wanted to help these people displaced and devastated by your war) to attacks by british soldiers. It is not right, it is not just.
I have a healthy degree of cynicism towards your comments.
I'd be very interested to know how you knew they were "drone strikes" and not some form of surface-to-surface weapon or an air-launched weapon from a manned platform. I'm intimately familiar with the weapons carried by both our and the US drones, and I've stood where attacks have taken place several times. They're very small weapons and don't cause a lot of "devastation;" and I've been extremely close to one as it went off before.
I'd also be very interested to know where you were when you witnessed British soldiers killing British citizens, relatives of yours, who were purely there to help. Having watched with my own eyes the extremely complex, dangerous operation to retrieve the last group of British hostages held up in the north, I'm privy to a lot of the intelligence that we have on British citizens in Afghanistan. I find it very difficult to believe that British citizens could be killed without it being spotted, and doubly so that it'd be caused by British soldiers.
I'd also be interested in a citation regarding your tale of a group of US soldiers executing a child in order to kill an unidentified Afghan civilian. Name the village and the date? My current job gives me access to a huge amount of US intelligence and I'd love to see the mission report. It reminds me of some of the tall tales I was told by various village elders during a trip to Afghanistan that were rooted in the truth but not the actual truth. Were you there?
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
