'Erm, great. Don't put your hands near me. I know what you squaddies are like. Few too many pregnancies where I grew up...' <In my head.
"OK. Grew up near an Army Camp, actually." <To your face, and then try to escape, unless it was particularly stimulating conversations, which given the squaddies I know (n offense, OP) isn't normally. There again that could have just been Brown-Town...
x Turn on thread page Beta
Girls: your view on squaddies watch
- 20-07-2009 17:38
- 20-07-2009 17:40
Army people milk it enough with the girls, stop crying.
- 20-07-2009 17:43
This is probably a huge generalisation but i went out with someone from the army for almost a year - he was a nasty piece of work. He thought cos he was in the army he was bigger, better and stronger than anyone else and that it gave me freedom to start fights and be agressive in situations where it wasnt really necessary. he was also a rubbish boyfriend, constantly cheating, and had little idea about real life cos he was so blinkered by what the army told him...i would probably stay clear in future.
- 20-07-2009 17:47
No, probably not. Unless you came across as a sleazy individual and other certain uneasy traits, then yes, maybe, but that applies to all males.
(Original post by Honey_89)
- 20-07-2009 17:48
I luv army guys, find it quite sexy if a guy is in the army
Also, does it matter if they're fighting for Al-Taleban?
- 20-07-2009 17:53
Wouldn't bother me as such, I have dated a couple briefly, one I was friends with for a couple of years before/after we dated. He was hot
I probably wouldn't want one as a boyfriend, but I wouldn't stop talking to them purely for the fact they were in the army.
- 20-07-2009 17:58
I wouldnt be put off at all. I respect armed forces. It should improve conversation anyway- better than the normal office job to talk about. Plus the uniform isnt half bad.
(Original post by littleshambles)
- 20-07-2009 18:03
When you join a state army you're the first line of defence for a structure I view as immoral (i.e. the state), and all the talk about defending your nation and your freedoms is mostly bluster, because the army is there to enforce the interests of the state, whatever they are, and however tenuous their relation to morality (or indeed, nationhood; I don't see any reason why some sense of "ethnocultural" or whatever the word is identity need be inextricably linked to a state entity; it seems to me the notion of nationalism does more for the state than the state does for the notion of nationalism). I don't view waging war as immoral in any and all circumstances, and the fact that soldiers kill people isn't the main reason why I have a problem with it. There are plenty of circumstances in which it is entirely permissible to kill people, but the army, based as it is on command and hierarchy, and being a weapon of the state, can't really get my full support. Whenever a member of the armed forces is court-martialled after refusing to follow orders on moral grounds, that basically sums up my objection.
I just want to add to this objection.
When i was younger i was a cadet in the ACF, and used to believe all the crap that the instructors spouted (although still managed to remain a republican ).
The UK military will never protect me, as it is there to protect the state. The idea that the military is there to protect people is ludicrous, and as ridiculous as the idea that the police are there to protect people. Both are there in order to maintain the status quo, the police to protect the interests of the elites, and property owners, and the army to maintain the state. Anyone who desents angainst this state of affairs can face the brutality of the police or army, as seen with the G20 demonstrations, and in the military repression in Northern Ireland during the troubles (bloody sunday is a perfect example).
Any appeals to nationalism are also disgusting. Any level of patriotism is racist, patriotism would make a person put the lives of 100 British, over the lives of 200 congolese, how can you justify that?