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

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sithius)
    Got to love the people voting the last option, safely behind their keyboard and not having to face the prospect of a battlefield. Must be nice.
    Whereas you're posting this from your iPhone in an Iraqi trench somewhere?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by big-boss-91)
    the current conflict is necessary to suppress the terrorists
    People actually believe this? That's quite sad. I know people believe a lot of strange things but I didn't realise anyone bought the nonsense Blair talked about terrorism. Do you know how many people have been killed (troops and civillians) by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan compared to the number of people who have been killed by Islamic terrorists?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I find I admire them for their ability to put themselves on the line and risk their lives - not because I agree or disagree with what they are doing, who they are doing it for and if it's right or wrong. I just respect them as people for the risks they choose to take - think about those who disarm IEDs in order to reduce the risks to their fellow soliders - now that is commendable. Look at it from a smaller perspective i.e. on an individualistic basis considering a solider as a human being and an individual, not just an army of people obeying the governments every move, right or wrong.

    Most reasonable people would agree that individually they are putting themselves in serious danger in a high pressure and in many cases a highly skilled job and that is worth a high level of respect.

    (Original post by Chumbaniya)
    People actually believe this? That's quite sad. I know people believe a lot of strange things but I didn't realise anyone bought the nonsense Blair talked about terrorism. Do you know how many people have been killed (troops and civillians) by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan compared to the number of people who have been killed by Islamic terrorists?
    Your point about the number of civilians and soliders killed in comparison to the number killed by terrorists is true however no government in its right mind would go on without some sort of response to the increasing number of terrorist attacks, such as 9/11. What would people have said if the politicians did nothing after 9/11 and just sat around when terrorists purporting these attacks do reside and move freely within these countries? I know what you are saying about what terrible things occurred as a result of the war but IMO the US itself would have been damned if it did and damned if it didn't when it came to invading. Oh and of course in any situation, again politically when the US calls the UK will be there - now I can't really say if that is right or wrong myself.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    Yeah but its all disposable income
    It really, really isn't.

    Food and accommodation on ops is provided, but it costs at all other times, and you still have to pay for whatever accommodation you occupy at home while you're deployed. You still have all the other bills that everyday people have, they don't stop because they're abroad. You still have to pay council tax while you're on ops...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chumbaniya)
    People actually believe this? That's quite sad. I know people believe a lot of strange things but I didn't realise anyone bought the nonsense Blair talked about terrorism. Do you know how many people have been killed (troops and civillians) by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan compared to the number of people who have been killed by Islamic terrorists?

    [Devil's advocate]Don't you think the latter number might have been different had these actions not taken place, though?[/Devil's advocate]
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Not in most cases. Certainly less than the Fire Services (although they lose some respect for me with persistent striking).
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brutal Honesty)
    OP
    You forgot an option:

    "No, they deserve less respect for supporting armed conflict rather than educating themselves and becoming productive members of society."
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    um, no, they especially deserve DISrespect...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigFudamental)
    Whereas you're posting this from your iPhone in an Iraqi trench somewhere?
    I simply mean that it must be nice to not have that prospect and be of such a character that you don't need to think about what it would be like, and consequently would vote the last poll option. And yes, that was sarcasm.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chumbaniya)
    People actually believe this? That's quite sad. I know people believe a lot of strange things but I didn't realise anyone bought the nonsense Blair talked about terrorism. Do you know how many people have been killed (troops and civillians) by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan compared to the number of people who have been killed by Islamic terrorists?
    Well, the overwhelming majority of the people killed in those conflicts have been killed by terrorists.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sithius)
    I simply mean that it must be nice to not have that prospect and be of such a character that you don't need to think about what it would be like, and consequently would vote the last poll option. And yes, that was sarcasm.
    Of course it's nice not to have that prospect, that's why most people who have the option choose not to join the armed forces.

    In response to the OP, I admire the mental and physical endurance of anyone who is actively engaged in a warzone, but I don't buy all this "these guys are putting their lives on the line for the rest of us" nonsense. The armed forces are at present in no way protecting or representing my freedoms and interests, except in the form of involvement in humanitarian aid operations, which are not particularly dangerous anyhow (and if they were would not in my view justify the risk). So yes, I respect them for putting up with an unpleasant job that I would be unhappy doing myself, but no more than I respect marathon runners or sewage workers.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    [Devil's advocate]Don't you think the latter number might have been different had these actions not taken place, though?[/Devil's advocate]
    Undoubtedly so, in that there would have been fewer terrorist attacks if the wars had not been started. The Iraq war is the best recruitment tool terrorists could have hoped for. The whole point of terrorism is to attract a lot of attention and get a reaction out of people through fear. If the response to terrorism was actually more proportionate to the threat, it wouldn't be as effective and terrorist attacks would be rarer because they'd be less effective.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Organ)
    Well, the overwhelming majority of the people killed in those conflicts have been killed by terrorists.

    Hmm, this is an interesting one. I would have thought that the British and American troops in these countries were responsible (rightly or wrongly) for the deaths of a hell of a lot of people.

    I don't wish to open a can of worms but do you believe the War in Iraq in particular to be legal? If anything, it brakes International Law and was based upon falsified information (with regards to WOMD). To me, purely another form of terrorism itself, just on a grander scale with positive media coverage and some interesting 'excuses'.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Organ)
    Well, the overwhelming majority of the people killed in those conflicts have been killed by terrorists.
    Well, on a terminology note I'm not entirely sure 'terrorist' is actually the right word for people attacking soldiers occupying their country. I'm not condoning all the roadside bombings, but I think it's a lot less clear cut than attacks on innocent civillians.

    Anyway, I'm not sure you can lay all the blame on those carrying out the attacks in this case. This is a very vague analogy so don't think I believe all of the implications it has, but if you walk into an enclosure with a fairly docile dog and start poking the dog with a stick and shouting at it, you can't lay all of the blame on the dog when it bites you, and you certainly can't claim that you needed to go in there and attack the dog because the dog is violent when the main reason for its violence was your attack in the first place.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chumbaniya)
    Undoubtedly so, in that there would have been fewer terrorist attacks if the wars had not been started. The Iraq war is the best recruitment tool terrorists could have hoped for. The whole point of terrorism is to attract a lot of attention and get a reaction out of people through fear. If the response to terrorism was actually more proportionate to the threat, it wouldn't be as effective and terrorist attacks would be rarer because they'd be less effective.
    However, the wars were as a result of terrorism, had the wars not started do you think the terrorism would have stopped?

    "Oh, they're ignoring us... Yeah, ok, we'll stop"

    Somehow I doubt it. Undeniably, it helped their cause, but they became more concerned about preserving themselves where they were already set up than pushing out into the west.

    I'm firmly of the belief that by being in Iraq and Afghanistan we've stopped more attacks on the UK/US. The wars created terrorism. But more terrorism than was already happening or going to happen? Very much doubt it - but I am aware that's an impossible point to back up.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dnator)
    For the kind of people who go in as regs, it is.
    I haven't met many soldiers who think that's anyway decent.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I know 5 guys in the army from my school.



    All guys who didn't pay attention and got in trouble whilst being there. The army is just a last resort for most people.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    Yeah but its all disposable income
    You do have a point, but even disregarding the expense supplements the money still isn't great.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kevin J)
    I know 5 guys in the army from my school.

    All guys who didn't pay attention and got in trouble whilst being there. The army is just a last resort for most people.

    Oh well. 5 guys, that's got to representative of the 200,000 in the British armed forces.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chumbaniya)
    Well, on a terminology note I'm not entirely sure 'terrorist' is actually the right word for people attacking soldiers occupying their country. I'm not condoning all the roadside bombings, but I think it's a lot less clear cut than attacks on innocent civillians.

    Anyway, I'm not sure you can lay all the blame on those carrying out the attacks in this case. This is a very vague analogy so don't think I believe all of the implications it has, but if you walk into an enclosure with a fairly docile dog and start poking the dog with a stick and shouting at it, you can't lay all of the blame on the dog when it bites you, and you certainly can't claim that you needed to go in there and attack the dog because the dog is violent when the main reason for its violence was your attack in the first place.
    As an outsider, I would tend to agree with this analogy
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,867

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
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.