Turn on thread page Beta

Do soldiers deserve any special kind of respect? watch

Announcements
  • 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

    1
    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?
    quite a lot killed by islamic terrorists, they killed hundreds in the middle east, killed 300 plus of the british troops, the london tube bombing, the bus bombing, 9/11, need i go on? the numbers actually stacks up quite high
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I know my opinion is controversial, but I don't think they deserve any kind or sympathy or respect.

    If they are injured, why should they be called 'war heroes'? When they sign up, they know the risks and they know they may be but in the position where they have to take the life of another human. It immoral.

    Being in the armed forces and fighting for your country doesn't cover up the fact that it's murder.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I do respect them but not as much as i respect veterans of WW2; that was the last just war.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Personally I have great admiration for soldiers; both my cousin and my step-brother are in the army and I think what they do deserves a lot of respect. They willingly put their lives on the line for their country, and I'm not sure I'd have the strength to do that.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheSownRose)
    I'd say no, not special respect - they chose to go into the military, after all.
    so only those forced to do something against their own will deserve respect? By that logic, am I to be respected if I killed someone, having been blackmailed into it?

    Whether the reason they go into the army is to protect country, friends and family or whether it is because it is their only option, they are being pitted on the front line Their lives could be snatched away at any minute. As much as I think this whole aggression is uneccassary, and as much as I dislike the atrocities our occupation has brought, I cant help but respect people who are marching out knowing they may never return, and that they are giving this sacrifice for other people (whether you agree with that or not, it is how they themselves percieve it). I am sure no one would say that 25 grand is worth potentially loosing your life.

    (Original post by Shortarse1)
    So being a doctor, safety inspector or aid worker is as dangerous as being a soldier?

    Actually, Afghanistan wasn't about appeasing the Americans, although why let facts get in the way of a good rant ay?
    Why were we there then? I would say being an aid worker in a hostile region is just as dangerous, if not more so then being a soldier.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hah, yes I'm sure that most squaddies are thinking of defending the country and upholding peace and honour... NOT!

    In the words of a school dropout I know who joined the army, "I'm signing up cause the pay's good and it means I can go shoot some ragheads!"
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by big-boss-91)
    quite a lot killed by islamic terrorists, they killed hundreds in the middle east, killed 300 plus of the british troops, the london tube bombing, the bus bombing, 9/11, need i go on? the numbers actually stacks up quite high
    How are any of the terrorist acts committed after 2001 relevant here? Afghanistan was invaded a few months after 9/11 yet all of those bombings you list occurred after Britain went to war. Most of them in Iraq and Afghanistan which only happened because it was a massive unstable warzone. 7/7 and the Madrid bombings happened because of the UK and Spain's involvement in the wars so they wouldn't have happened if these countries didn't go to war. The death toll from 7/7 was 52, Madrid 190, 9/11 2750 so that's just under 3000 whereas the civilian death toll in Afghanistan is 40,000 and in Iraq 600,000 or up to 1,000,000 according to some sources. War costs a lot more lives than terrorism.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm pretty impressed, my first post has caused so much controversy that I have been repped and negged so much that's balanced out.

    (Original post by adam_zed)
    Why were we there then? I would say being an aid worker in a hostile region is just as dangerous, if not more so then being a soldier.
    The UN sent us in.

    Really, being an aid worker largely under the protection of soldiers is more dangerous? Not to mention the fact that part of aid workers work does not include seeking out the enemy and seeking engagements as well as just holding ground.

    Being an aid worker carries risk, but then they can choose the degree of danger to expose themselves, soldiers do not have such a luxury, in fact, their role practically requires them to expose themselves to danger if possible.

    (Original post by Gap)
    I do respect them but not as much as i respect veterans of WW2; that was the last just war.
    At the time however they didn't know about the holocaust et al. So what about the Falklands when Argentina invaded solely to increase patriotic support for the incumbent government and Britain retook the islands?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shortarse1)
    I'm pretty impressed, my first post has caused so much controversy that I have been repped and negged so much that's balanced out.



    The UN sent us in.

    Really, being an aid worker largely under the protection of soldiers is more dangerous? Not to mention the fact that part of aid workers work does not include seeking out the enemy and seeking engagements as well as just holding ground.

    Being an aid worker carries risk, but then they can choose the degree of danger to expose themselves, soldiers do not have such a luxury, in fact, their role practically requires them to expose themselves to danger if possible.
    What controversy? I was merely commenting on what you said?

    Aid workers arent always under the protection of soldiers, rather having only a few local armed millita to protect them. I would say a fair few aid workers venture into risker places as that is where they are needed. I mean, whats the point in volunteering in Pakistan and just spending the whole time in Karachi's Marriot?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam_zed)
    What controversy? I was merely commenting on what you said?

    Aid workers arent always under the protection of soldiers, rather having only a few local armed millita to protect them. I would say a fair few aid workers venture into risker places as that is where they are needed. I mean, whats the point in volunteering in Pakistan and just spending the whole time in Karachi's Marriot?
    Not your comment alone, it's just that I've had loads of pos/neg repping from that one post and a fair few quotes more than my opinion produces normally.

    I'm not saying that there isn't time when they're not at risk, but on the whole soldiers are at risk far more often than aid workers, and don't have an easy job walking away from the danger.

    (Original post by Brutal Honesty)
    How are any of the terrorist acts committed after 2001 relevant here? Afghanistan was invaded a few months after 9/11 yet all of those bombings you list occurred after Britain went to war. Most of them in Iraq and Afghanistan which only happened because it was a massive unstable warzone. 7/7 and the Madrid bombings happened because of the UK and Spain's involvement in the wars so they wouldn't have happened if these countries didn't go to war. The death toll from 7/7 was 52, Madrid 190, 9/11 2750 so that's just under 3000 whereas the civilian death toll in Afghanistan is 40,000 and in Iraq 600,000 or up to 1,000,000 according to some sources. War costs a lot more lives than terrorism.
    I imagine WW2 cost more lives than people who would have been killed in the Holocaust, yet most people would agree preventing it was a good thing.

    Also, it doesn't take into account the number of people the Taliban have killed simply to remain in control and the victims of a Sahria regime they implement.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100810/...as_afghanistan - Groups like that will do anything to remain in control, are you saying it would have been better to leave them in power just to avoid a war that might actually make peoples lives better?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shortarse1)
    Not your comment alone, it's just that I've had loads of pos/neg repping from that one post and a fair few quotes more than my opinion produces normally.

    I'm not saying that there isn't time when they're not at risk, but on the whole soldiers are at risk far more often than aid workers, and don't have an easy job walking away from the danger.



    I imagine WW2 cost more lives than people who would have been killed in the Holocaust, yet most people would agree preventing it was a good thing.

    Also, it doesn't take into account the number of people the Taliban have killed simply to remain in control and the victims of a Sahria regime they implement.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100810/...as_afghanistan - Groups like that will do anything to remain in control, are you saying it would have been better to leave them in power just to avoid a war that might actually make peoples lives better?
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think they deserve a huge amount extra. They do a job I'm very happy there are people willing to do, and it is a respectable job. I couldn't do it. But I think it falls into the same category as jobs like teachers and nurses. These people put up with poor conditions and low pay mostly out of duty and a need to help people, much like soldiers do for patriotism. Is a teacher going to get shot at? No, but that's not why I respect soldiers, I do because they do a job that needs doing and they don't do it for selfish motives like a lot of people do.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yes they do, not just them, but every people deserve some respect.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No. I don't consider someone who willingly signs up for a job where part of the job is to kill, a hero. You can say 'but they're putting their lives on the line to protect us' as much as you want, but no, they're not. Is our country under invasion? No. They're fighting a war that has nothing to do with 'protecting' us. I don't support the war, i don't support the military. I have nothing against the individual soilders, and i'm not denying that they are brave, and i do feel bad for them when they die/ are injured in action. It's the military as an organisation that i have a problem with. However, to the people saying that soilders are heros that deserve the utmost respect because they 'put their lives on the line', do you ever give a second thought to the afghani and iraqi civilian casualties of the war? No, didn't think so.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BillySharp92)
    I cannot believe some of the ignorant replies on here!
    My father served in the Falklands and in Northern Ireland. He got a degree at Maths at York and never killed on 'behalf of oil' as some of you are saying. While soldiers do indeed volunteer, they certainly deserve respect for what they do. They don't just 'murder Afghan children' as some of you say, but they do loads of charity work as well, e.g. Sierra Leone.
    Rather ironic i think....

    And alright then, so if i went out and shot a kid, but then helped some old ladies accross the road and did some charity work, would that make it all ok?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    They do a job I myself could never do and for that I respect them.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KTpie)
    No. I don't consider someone who willingly signs up for a job where part of the job is to kill, a hero. You can say 'but they're putting their lives on the line to protect us' as much as you want, but no, they're not. Is our country under invasion? No. They're fighting a war that has nothing to do with 'protecting' us. I don't support the war, i don't support the military. I have nothing against the individual soilders, and i'm not denying that they are brave, and i do feel bad for them when they die/ are injured in action. It's the military as an organisation that i have a problem with. However, to the people saying that soilders are heros that deserve the utmost respect because they 'put their lives on the line', do you ever give a second thought to the afghani and iraqi civilian casualties of the war? No, didn't think so.
    Completely agree (however I do not feel bad for them if they die/are injured), at the end of the day - their job is to kill people, simply because they have a different set of beliefs to us, whichever they may be. If we want to go and invade a country (specifically Afghan/Iraq) for the 'reasons' we do, then I really do not blame the Taliban for fighting back. It's not even as if our army going in there is just going to make the Taliban go away - they will come back.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KTpie)
    No. I don't consider someone who willingly signs up for a job where part of the job is to kill, a hero. You can say 'but they're putting their lives on the line to protect us' as much as you want, but no, they're not. Is our country under invasion? No. They're fighting a war that has nothing to do with 'protecting' us. I don't support the war, i don't support the military. I have nothing against the individual soilders, and i'm not denying that they are brave, and i do feel bad for them when they die/ are injured in action. It's the military as an organisation that i have a problem with. However, to the people saying that soilders are heros that deserve the utmost respect because they 'put their lives on the line', do you ever give a second thought to the afghani and iraqi civilian casualties of the war? No, didn't think so.
    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".
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    0
    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".
    Yep, i completely agree with you. My post was mostly directed towards the people ranting on about how the soilders are heroes and deserve special respect etc etc.
 
 
 
Poll
Could you cope without Wifi?
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.