Turn on thread page Beta

Do soldiers deserve any special kind of respect? watch

  • View Poll Results: Do soldiers deserve special respect over other professions?
    Yes, unconditionally
    89
    29.67%
    Only in certain cases
    112
    37.33%
    No, it is just another profession
    99
    33.00%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bellissima)
    Not as much as soldiers in WW2 and 1 etc. deserve.. but they're still laying down their life for the country so they do deserve some respect.
    I suggest you take a gander at the post abouve yours
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bellissima)
    Not as much as soldiers in WW2 and 1 etc. deserve.. but they're still laying down their life for the country so they do deserve some respect.
    No, they're laying their lives down to obey the government. Just like German soldiers were doing in WWII.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brutal Honesty)
    The thing with soldiers today is that they don't sign up to protect our country, they sign up to obey the government. When WW1/2 took place millions of people signed up to the army because they wanted to protect their country from invasion, if there was another world war and Britain was again under threat of invasion then I'd imagine the same thing would happen, many would sign up to defend the nation from invasion. When there isn't such a threat (as in the case for the past 75 years) you're simply signing up to obey government orders, no matter what the government tell you to do you do it. If the government wanted to randomly invade Denmark because they hate Danish people, they'd do it and soldiers would kill lots of Danish families and people would say "they were just doing their job" and "it's not their fault", well hitmen still get jailed don't they and they're "just doing their job", the people who gassed Jews were "just doing their job", and people who work for the Taliban are "just doing their job".
    The idiocy in this post hurts.

    Re WW2, you might want to look up a word called 'conscription'. A law came into force making people sign up, volunteering didn't come into it. I'm not saying their actions are not worthy of respect, but it does put a spin on it when you say only volunteers gain respect.

    Britain after 1941 was no longer under threat of invasion, so are all the soldiers who later invaded France, Belgium, Holland, Italy and Germany to be dubbed imperialist invaders and unjust in their aims?

    Your Denmark analogy is poor and smacks of ignorance, bias and a complete lack of knowledge for laws and process in this country. 'Not liking somewhere' is not a legal basis for war, if it was, we'd be at war with half the world [and would never have stopped being at war with the French...]. There has to be a legal precedent to begin a conflict. We can argue about Iraq all you want, doesn't change the fact that at the beginning of the conflict it was believed to be legal. That it has since been [almost] proven to not be is not the fault of those asked to act, but those who did the asking, so take it up with the Government.

    The rest of your post hurts too much to read, but I wouldn't expect much more from you. All I will say is that it is illegal to kill civilians during war. Yes, it happens, but if you think it's deliberate then you deserve a special kind of hell.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    My head hurts from the utter stupidity of some people who have posted on this thread...
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    The rest of your post hurts too much to read, but I wouldn't expect much more from you. All I will say is that it is illegal to kill civilians during war. Yes, it happens, but if you think it's deliberate then you deserve a special kind of hell.
    I'm sorry but simply acknowledging this fact does not make it go away. Hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed during these Iraq/Afghanistan wars - naturally most of them are accidental yes, but that simply does not make an excuse. If all these civilians are really going to die, then rather than saying "oh well, it happens", why don't we just not go into war? Seems a much safer option to me.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shortarse1)
    To the negger:
    Is it really necessary to use that kind of language?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Some one here commented my post.thanks for that.can you send me PM.i got a Q.

    sorry off topic:o:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    NO. You only deserve respect if you've actually contributed something useful to society and are spreading something good.

    Most soldiers are just dumbasses who aren't intelligent enough to finish high school or get into university, and so they join the army. The government tells them how brave they are and how much of heroes they are because they are freeing people from oppression in foreign countries and it just feeds their egos which used to be low after realizing they are not smart enough or good enough to do anything with their life apart from fighting in the army - obviously the government is chatting BS though because they just praise them (lie to their face) while actually they are just using them as pawns in their political games and spreading their influence abroad, it's just they know that soldiers are too dumb to realize this and so they take advantage of them and tell them they are 'heroes'. I do feel sorry for them because they are all out there risking their lives for nothing, being lied to and live in some day dream world thinking they are doing something good and being happy about wasting their life serving as slaves for the likes of Tony Blair and Bush.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I voted for "Only in certain cases."
    Just because a person is in the armed forces doesn't immedietly make them a hero or respectable, as people in the past and in the presents have done terrible things to shame the uniform they wear.
    However I still have a respect for the job they do and I also respect that their job is more often than not hard and that civvies like me would never really understand.

    That said, I give any service man or woman the benefit of the doubt before judging them.

    I know a few ex-service people and a few serving now. They are all decent people who have un-blemished records.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    to put this onto prospective a footballer trains every day, and plays a match once, maybe twice a week with very little chance of death goes out at night cheats on his wife, has a few drinks and then drives home earns millions for pleasure of it and people give them unconditional respect whereas a soldier in afghan treins every day, goes out on patrols risking there life and even when they get back to there doss bags and get there heads dows they're and they do it all for about £15k a year they DO deserve conditional respect of the general public.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craiky1506)
    I'm sorry but simply acknowledging this fact does not make it go away. Hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed during these Iraq/Afghanistan wars - naturally most of them are accidental yes, but that simply does not make an excuse. If all these civilians are really going to die, then rather than saying "oh well, it happens", why don't we just not go into war? Seems a much safer option to me.
    That's because you live in a world and at a time when such thoughts are completely impossible to comprehend.

    Sometimes it takes the death of 1 or 2 people to make the lives of 1 or 2 thousand better. They don't need to die, but the action that needs to be taken that may inadvertantly result in their death is for the benefit of more people.

    To a certain extent, you have to remove yourself from the humanity of it, while at the same time doing it for humanity's sake, if you see what I mean.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shortarse1)
    So being a doctor, safety inspector or aid worker is as dangerous as being a soldier?
    Frankly your post is filled with ignorance and naivity, I shan't bother picking thought the rest.
    .

    I agree wholly with this fine chaps post.

    Frankly I find it disgusting that footballers (and yes, before any smallminded twerp comes along and negreps me - I am a football fan, but disagree wholly with the fact that premiership 'stars', and often players in lower leagues than that are handed so much money for what they do) get paid so much money for running about on a field all day. They need to earn their money, like other people do.
    Those soldiers fight bloody hard - and are left sometimes not just physically damaged, but mentally too. They go out there knowing that they are fighting for themselves, their comrades & those whose lives in another country they may be fighting to protect. I'm not saying that other people don't work as hard as they do - there are of course different levels of 'working hard' within employment, but it takes a certain kind of person to put their lives on the line for someone elses.

    Ronaldo, eat your heart out.
    Those soldiers should be treat with respect unconditionally.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    That's because you live in a world and at a time when such thoughts are completely impossible to comprehend.

    Sometimes it takes the death of 1 or 2 people to make the lives of 1 or 2 thousand better. They don't need to die, but the action that needs to be taken that may inadvertantly result in their death is for the benefit of more people.

    To a certain extent, you have to remove yourself from the humanity of it, while at the same time doing it for humanity's sake, if you see what I mean.
    That's all very nice and sweet but is Iraq a better country than it was before? Is Afganistan? People dieing there on a daily, so cut that humanity crap.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoLoco)
    That's all very nice and sweet but is Iraq a better country than it was before? Is Afganistan? People dieing there on a daily, so cut that humanity crap.
    In Afg women and children are able to leave their houses, get an education and work, I consider that a step up.

    People die everywhere everyday - it's a side effect of life, oddly enough - but if we can alleviate some of the suffering they or their compatriots endure along the way isn't that just a tiny bit noble?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    In Afg women and children are able to leave their houses, get an education and work, I consider that a step up.

    People die everywhere everyday - it's a side effect of life, oddly enough - but if we can alleviate some of the suffering they or their compatriots endure along the way isn't that just a tiny bit noble?
    ''People die everywhere everyday'' - yet the world goes crazy when a British soldier dies, but when an orphanage gets bombed in Iraq by 'accident' its just mentioned for about 12 seconds on the BBC, if at all.

    If you're going to act noble, do it properly. What's the point of doing good if you **** up people's lives aswell? Atleast before the war people were eating and drinking.

    PS: I respect all those who died in the war, be it British or afgans/iraqi's. Just stating my opinion though.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brutal Honesty)
    Yes, the Holocaust involved mass extermination of people by German soldiers. This thread topic is about whether soldiers deserve any special kind of respect for the job they're doing, WW2 wasn't about saving people from being killed it was about protecting countries in Europe from being invaded and making sure the power balance was restored. The only reason Britain went to war was because Germany invaded Poland, if they simply killed 15m of their own people without trying to take over the whole of Europe WW2 wouldn't have happened. It's the same reason why no-one's invaded DR Congo even after 10m have died due to civil war.
    Soldiers of the Wehrmacht weren't the killers, largely SS men, people who were chosen for their beliefs out of the ranks of the German Army.

    And soldiers intervened in Bosnia and Sierra Leone didn't they, and the same argument can be made for going to Iraq, Saddam was quite happy to use as much force as required to stay in power.

    (Original post by Great Lord Xenu)
    Is it really necessary to use that kind of language?
    I bet you feel proud of that post...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoLoco)
    ''People die everywhere everyday'' - yet the world goes crazy when a British soldier dies, but when an orphanage gets bombed in Iraq by 'accident' its just mentioned for about 12 seconds on the BBC, if at all.

    If you're going to act noble, do it properly. What's the point of doing good if you **** up people's lives aswell? Atleast before the war people were eating and drinking.

    PS: I respect all those who died in the war, be it British or afgans/iraqi's. Just stating my opinion though.
    No. British News mentions it when a British citizen dies, as their relatives and people in this country are deemed more likely to know/care about someone who died in their name. The loss of one child or more in Afg or Iraq is no less tragic, but - according to our media providers - of less relevance to the British public.

    Why is that the soldier's fault?

    If you object to that, tell the BBC, tell ITN.
    Either way, it has completely no bearing on the debate of this thread, as moronic as it is.

    As for the 'do it properly' remark, it's just typical of today's population who have no understanding of war or conflicts. Sure, you might think you know what's going on because of watching the news, reading blogs and god knows what other biased sources from all sides, but you don't know of the nature of battle, of the decisions people have to make in a split second and then live with those decisions, of seeing friends die in your arms or, at worst, causing death yourself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BillySharp92)
    As for that plank who was comparing Afghanistan to USA, I think you need to get real. Afghanistan is a country which has suppressed women and ethnic groups and other religions; had regimes which have killed thousands etc etc. The USA may have its flaws, but to compare it to Afghanistan is to do a great dissrespect to the people who have suffered under Taleban rule.
    The majority of soldiers deserve great respect for what they do. They may not 'protect our country' in a traditional sense (1939-45), but they do by eliminating terrorists who seek to end our democracy (which allows you to spout such idiotic views on soldiers) and instill a terrible extremist ideology.
    Plank? Be fair.

    I wasn't comparing the US and Afghanistan as countries as such, merely pointing out that the US is guilty of crimes on a far grander scale throughout the 20th century. The US is a regime which has directly led to deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people across the world throughout the latter part of the 20th century.

    The oppressive rule in Afghan is/was indeed terrible, but what's interesting is the point that you make about eliminating terrorists who seek to end our democracy.

    The US actually instilled dictators who actively sought to end the democracy in the countries that they subsequently ruled over. There are numerous examples of where the US has intervened abroad (contrary to all International Law) and in a roundabout way (eg, not using it's own army, because that is a little too obvious, but funding mercenary forces) to actually end democracy in places it considered it to be a threat to US business interests there. Do you want examples?

    The US is far more than "flawed".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Soldiers of all ranks deserve a great respect, its not all about fighting wars, soldiers are part of all the forces not just the army, its the military that is there helping when aid is needed and risking there lives to save stupid morons who decide to go rock climbing in sub zero temperatures in shorts and t-shirt (and other scenarios like such). They are also the guys and girls who put there lives on the line everyday in major disasters. The war in Afghan is a small part of a major operation.

    Before dis-respecting soldiers stating they are stupid morons who couldnt get another job ask yourself, could you do the same job.

    The training to be a soldier is very intense and that is why so many who apply to the armed forces don't get accepted as they havent got what it takes. Be it physical strength or intelligence or both.

    And before anyone asks yes i am from a military family.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    No. British News mentions it when a British citizen dies, as their relatives and people in this country are deemed more likely to know/care about someone who died in their name. The loss of one child or more in Afg or Iraq is no less tragic, but - according to our media providers - of less relevance to the British public.

    Why is that the soldier's fault?

    If you object to that, tell the BBC, tell ITN.
    Either way, it has completely no bearing on the debate of this thread, as moronic as it is.

    As for the 'do it properly' remark, it's just typical of today's population who have no understanding of war or conflicts. Sure, you might think you know what's going on because of watching the news, reading blogs and god knows what other biased sources from all sides, but you don't know of the nature of battle, of the decisions people have to make in a split second and then live with those decisions, of seeing friends die in your arms or, at worst, causing death yourself.
    I was actually born in Baghdad. I got a family in Iraq witnessing this ******** everyday. Don't think that i'm against British people or the army. When Britain comes up in a debate i'm always the first to defend them. My sources aren't the news or biased papers, my sources are real people like me and you living there who have to find ways to survive because of all the new dramas the war produced.

    It's true that life wasn't great before the war, but atleast people were working, living, seeing their family members, had healthcare etc etc..I went iraq in 2005 and the country is nothing more or less than hideous. I've held dead people in my arms before. I got 2 friends in the army right now touring Afganistan. They don't like the politics, but it's there job and they need to live and pay the bills aswell. I appreciate the work the army is doing by fighting the extremists but at the cost of normal everyday people?
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,747

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Will you be tempted to trade up and get out of your firm offer on results day?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.