Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why would anyone want to fight for this country? watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chrrye)
    You are an idiot. until the days of Skynet we will always need trained individuals to operate the weapons of modern war.

    You cant just throw a stockpile of weapons at an enemy, if its to have any effect it needs to be wielded by experienced professional soldiers.
    You're assuming that there is "an enemy". Britain's only military capacity, in my view, should be a defensive one. For a start, terrorist attacks are not the responsibility of the army, we have counter-insurgency for that; so the only real problem would be threat of invasion and as crude as it sounds, if a nation would ever threaten us (apart from the strength of the EU, United Nations, NATO, G14, our close links to the US, India and China, [who are the world's superpowers]) we could literally bomb them to pieces.
    So I don't really see your point right now.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eradicus)
    You're assuming that there is "an enemy". Britain's only military capacity, in my view, should be a defensive one. For a start, terrorist attacks are not the responsibility of the army, we have counter-insurgency for that; so the only real problem would be threat of invasion and as crude as it sounds, if a nation would ever threaten us (apart from the strength of the EU, United Nations, NATO, G14, our close links to the US, India and China, [who are the world's superpowers]) we could literally bomb them to pieces.
    So I don't really see your point right now.
    What if it was one of those strong nations?
    Ah. so you will have MI5 fight the enemy paratroopers. Cunning..
    Whoses flying the planes? Soldiers.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chrrye)
    so you think even now we are fighting to expand our imperialist ambitions? We want to rule Afghanistan and Iraq so bad.
    Yes, but the first and second aren't mutually exclusive? Thankfully definitions of 'imperialism' extended beyond what they teach you at A level.

    oh yeah! the past actions of Britain are the cause for all current world problems. sorry, I forgot.
    Umm, those in Africa, yes? Along with Belgium and our other oppressive buddies.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I think anyone who dies or fights for their country is a hero whether the OP likes it or not, but this argument is pointless as nobody is going to change their opinion so....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chrrye)
    I think our army has done operations of benefit as well in places like Sierra Leone and Serbia. The soldiers don't know where they will be posted, but they do have the discipline to carry out their orders as given. I don't think that is reason to hold them in contempt like the Op does.
    I think they join with the conviction (and I'm not saying its 100% true) that what they will be asked to do is for the benefit of the country and world. If that is enough reason for them, let them sign up and get on with their job.
    It's a mixed bag really, but our military hasn't proven itself to be a humanitarian force for good.

    I don't hold soldiers in contempt, but it is obvious their jobs have little social value, often result in lots of people dying, and cost the taxpayer money. Taking these factors and our recent history into account, I find it hard to believe that soldiers can join with the conviction that what they'll be doing will be good for anybody.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheJudge)
    They fight in the army because they have no other job opportunities.
    Where as you just stay on the dole. Good job!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chrrye)
    Where as you just stay on the dole. Good job!

    Actually i study and work part time. Unlike msot soldiers who cant get a job and when they do leave the army make up a large number of the homeless people.

    You are just a right wing nut job.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chrrye)
    Where as you just stay on the dole. Good job!
    You either sit on the dole and are scum or join the army and show the black(brown?) man who knows best :driver:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asert)
    You either sit on the dole and are scum or join the army and show the black(brown?) man who knows best :driver:
    If you say so? :curious:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with you OP, but in a weird way.

    I had this debate just recently. I didn't come to any conclusions. I said that I genuinely did not understand why someone would put their life at risk and be willing to take the lives of others by going in to a foreign place and aiming to lay down our own rules there. It doesn't seem fair, really, when we've spent however many years building a country where we CAN have free speech and exist independantly of other religions and such, to then scoot off to another country and go 'Right then, we're free and we think you should do this.' It's not fair, we can't expect everyone to agree with our version of 'freedom.' Obviously it begs the question 'but what if their freedom isn't really doing them any favours?' and I wouldn't know the answer to that one, either.
    I'm also undecided about how we should guard against terrorist attacks and the like. I mean, no one wants to stand there and let someone maim and destroy, but is fighting back really the most effective way? I guess in some cases yes, but surely others could be different. Are there truely ways to stop things getting that far? I don't know.

    I don't see how you could be fully for or against. Fully for forces, and you're forcing your rules at someone else and risking your life and taking theirs, essentially. Against and you leave yourself no defence.

    I'm somewhere in the middle.

    If anyone would like to deconstruct my post and tell me why I'm a bit of an idiot, I'd be delighted, mainly because that way I might make up my mind about something for once in my life.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asert)
    Umm, no. We (with a few others) caused it.

    I presume that you mean by leaving them to their own devices somewhat too abruptly?

    Well that's what you get if you want a National Insurance scheme and the NHS, you can't stop people killing one another over petty tribal or religious differences and look after your own people at home at the same time...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Ha! I just asked my friend what he thought of the intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan and his response was:

    We shouldn't be there, using up all our tax money. What do I care about some towel-headed sand peasants, anyway? **** 'em.

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stomm)
    I presume that you mean by leaving them to their own devices somewhat too abruptly?

    Well that's what you get if you want a National Insurance scheme and the NHS, you can't stop people killing one another over petty tribal or religious differences and look after your own people at home at the same time...

    With regard to my above post, to the person that neg-repped me with the comment following comment:
    No you idiot, he's talking about colonialism. Read about it.

    May I direct you towards this little known, and often misunderstood piece of trickery know as 'sarcasm'. You will of course note that there have been, well countless wars, civil wars and the like in the parts of the world that can now be described as 'post-colonial', indeed even the bits that buggered off on their own early had to have a nice little civil war a couple of years later (that's the USA in case you hadn't figured that out).


    So you can either argue that an imperial presence in a country helps to 'keep a lid' on violent sectarian tendencies, and other nasty practices (like for example rounding up and killing, either directly or through starvation and disease indigenous populations, or slavery again see USA, or East and Southern Africa). Or alternatively you can take the view that the scribbles on a map that the Europeans made helped to create these divisions within these post-colonial countries, with special reference to Africa.

    But then ultimately if you didn't have tribes mixed up across national borders, and formed post-colonial African countries based largely on tribal population boundaries. Well, then rather than an awful lot of inter-tribal violence, you'd just end up with an awful lot of 'proper' wars, probably involving tanks and all the really nasty stuff that happens when two nation states finally decide to give each other a damn good kicking.



    But on the positive side, at least colonialism means that West Africans are now able to write really bad English spoofing emails and texts so as to try to fleece pensioners in Kent* of their life savings because they might believe that they can get some rich old duffer's inheritance if they send £500 to some bloke they've never met in Africa...

    *or any other person who's grasp on technology and human nature is as tenuous as a two year old toddler. Actually my 2 1/2 year old daughter probably has a better grasp of these things than most of them...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Most soldeirs out there will tell you they're not fighting for queen and country.

    They are fighting for each other.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'd give me life defending people such as yourself who insist they don't respect soldiers, or believe/agree with a war. Its quite sad really.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HappinessHappening)
    Ha! I just asked my friend what he thought of the intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan and his response was:

    We shouldn't be there, using up all our tax money. What do I care about some towel-headed sand peasants, anyway? **** 'em.

    Oil.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExPenguin)
    It doesn't seem fair, really, when we've spent however many years building a country where we CAN have free speech and exist independantly of other religions and such, to then scoot off to another country and go 'Right then, we're free and we think you should do this.' It's not fair, we can't expect everyone to agree with our version of 'freedom.' Obviously it begs the question 'but what if their freedom isn't really doing them any favours?' and I wouldn't know the answer to that one, either.
    I'm also undecided about how we should guard against terrorist attacks and the like. I mean, no one wants to stand there and let someone maim and destroy, but is fighting back really the most effective way? I guess in some cases yes, but surely others could be different. Are there truely ways to stop things getting that far? I don't know.
    I think in terms of freedoms and rights its not that we wish to impose our morals and culture directly onto Afghanistan (that would not work, the governance of these countries will gradually be returned, they will still be islamic nations etc.), rather that we have come to realise that some of the very basic non-specific freedoms on which our civilisation is based: Equality for example were not being served and the current political and social infrastructure was set up so they would never be achieved if left alone. Taleban on women for example. Not only are the women not allowed to seek an education, they get stoned if they do.

    That coupled with the fact that terrorist training camps in these regions were starting to pump extremists out into foreign countries and letting US and UK citizens take a 'terrorism holiday' where they learnt to make bombs, psyched themselves up for suicide etc.
    These facilitated 'home-grown' terrorism to an increasing degree.

    Means something had to be done.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Stomm]W Or alternatively you can take the view that the scribbles on a map that the Europeans made helped to create these divisions within these post-colonial countries, with special reference to Africa.[QUOTE]

    Yes, that's exactly what happened. Take a look at the Rwandan genocide. Why did that happen? Because of a barely distinguishable difference between Tutsi and Hutu that was artificially created and exacerbated by the colonial occupiers, Germany and then more importantly Belgium. Divide and conquer techniques used by the colonial powers have created, and still create, divisions all across Africa, from Congo to Sudan. To say anything other than those conflicts were mainly started by the legacy of colonialism is to display a great ignorance of African history since the end of colonialism.

    But on the positive side, at least colonialism means that West Africans are now able to write really bad English spoofing emails and texts so as to try to fleece pensioners in Kent* of their life savings because they might believe that they can get some rich old duffer's inheritance if they send £500 to some bloke they've never met in Africa...
    HAHA, ******* blacks, right? Yeah now i know what type of person you are, i'm out. peace.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asert)
    You either sit on the dole and are scum or join the army and show the black(brown?) man who knows best :driver:
    (Original post by Asert)
    HAHA, ******* blacks, right?
    The only person saying these things is you..WTF are you on?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HappinessHappening)
    I look at British politics today and all I really see are spineless weaklings with no genuine passion for Britain or her prosperity.
    This is you in a different thread. Are you a hypocrite or just trolling trying to wind people up? Spineless weakling perfectly describes your professed attitude in this thread. And you obviously don't have genuine passion for Britain otherwise you be prepared to fight for it if it came to that.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.