[BBC News] Tour of thanks for Iraq soldiers

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Give him a break WUC - he has read too much and not had enough real life experience. Fact is if he came out with any of this in public he would get the crap kicked out of him - unless the law saved him. He has had to buy a computer and pay for an internet connection, and thus compromised his anti-capitalist principles. It must be difficult for him trying to make a living out of basket weaving, but hey, he can always express his sympathies for low paid workers, and his lack of respect for soldiers.

 

You clearly do not understand what I have been talking about, but if you so ignorant about such things you could always read a book about it. It has nothing to do with lack of life experience, the only thing more life experience can offer without recognising how the world really works is to be simply resigned to accepting the way the world is, but with that logic if too many people already whinge unnecessarily about the current political system, work, the environment, the Iraq War, etc.

 

And my principles have not been compromised at all. Do I have a choice about purchasing laptop and using the internet when it is the only way to obtain such things, things I need to communicate with and do my work with?

 

I think maybe too many people are equating my lack of respect for soldiers and lack of support with disrespect and lack of concern about them. If people are really getting their backs up because I am questioning why such people should have earned my respect and how support for soldiers is meaningless if you do not support the war then they should really question what the role of the British armed forces is and how it has operated over the past fifty years.

 

You are right, Soldiers dont contribute to the Island or the UK........

 

Well that was what I asking. How do they? Everyone seems all too ready to tell me I am silly and loser for opinions but nobody has really explained to me why one should respect those in the armed forces (not those killed). I have already discussed how people do not join the forces to fight for nation and country, so when these people put their lives at risk or die in combat how have they died for me?

 

I only had the question the topic of this thread because the article gives the impression that it is wrong that these soldiers are not supported. Yet it appears, as it does in so many other newspaper publications that such support should be a 'given'. I am questioning that because if the public cannot support British foreign policy then they cannot support the soldier. You can care about the, hope they get home okay, but you support them. I am seeking to upset people or get "Wake Up Calls" knickers in a twist, but just wanted to debate it and see what other people really think. Just nobody has explained anything just told me I am wrong.

[immortalpuppet]

Ok just a snippit of other things that i was involved in other than the normal stuff.

 

Fire fighters strikes in the UK: didnt see anyone else stepping up to cover them

Widespread floods and the deployment of troops to save the towns: civil defence could not take on the workload

Hunting for bodies in woods where the police would not go

Mountain rescue.

Making ww2 grenades/pyro that washes up on the beaches safe.

 

 

And thats just the stuff i was involved in, your "debate" is flawed and frankly becoming offensive to me so i wont rise anymore. Stick to your opinions but i hope that if you ever get a chance to meet and chat to any soldiers you make them aware of your opinions so they can retaunt without the mask of fancy words and walls of text.

[thebees]

LDV, usually I agree with you and generally I love your openess. I dont over this, my daughter is 'seeing' a boy in the army, hes only a kid, he joined the army (he is an engineer) because the employment prospects in the North of England are seriously bad. I had not considered this before, I always thought people joined the army because they wanted to be fighters. Anyone who risks their lives when they go to work is worthy of respect - just for doing their job. Fire fighters & soldiers are my personal 'huge admiration' for peoples

[Wake Up Call]

Wow Dolce V - you support class A drug dealers, thieves and now you don't care for soldiers who have given their lives for the society that you live in. I would love to know whatyour contribution to the Island is. Please enlighten me.

Alternatively, just confirm what a loser you are!

 

I do not support drug dealing, drugs are not good but we shouldn't criminalise people taking them; I do not support theft, where did you get this idea from? If you are talking about shoplifting then this is not theft, but if I stole from you it would be; and I never said I do not care about the soldiers, where have I said that? I don't RESPECT simply because they are in the forces and I certainly do not SUPPORT them as such a term is total contradiction if you do not support what they are fighting for.

 

My contribution to the Island? Why should I have made one to the ISLAND and why is one necessary? How are soldiers contributing to the Island or the UK?

I contribute to my community by mentoring young, gay, homeless people and I am a Victim Support worker.

 

Shoplifting isn't theft? Tell that one to the judge.

Ironic that you are involved in Victim Support.....surely the shop owners and staff are victims when they are targetted by thieves?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Ok just a snippit of other things that i was involved in other than the normal stuff.

 

Fire fighters strikes in the UK: didnt see anyone else stepping up to cover them

Widespread floods and the deployment of troops to save the towns: civil defence could not take on the workload

Hunting for bodies in woods where the police would not go

Mountain rescue.

Making ww2 grenades/pyro that washes up on the beaches safe.

 

The troops are used because they are government controlled and are the most appropriate form labour to use when there are no ready alternatives, certainly in the case of the fire fighters there was no other organisation that could step in (or possibly should, as I have some ambivalence on the use of troops as scabs, it removes the power from fire fighters to bargain on wages, but no fire fighters means not putting out fire, thought the government should have responded by paying them more). I do see the majority of these roles as beneficial and if such roles were the full extent of the soldiers work then I would certainly admire them, probably respect them and recognise their brilliant work. But the primary role of the armed forces, i.e. use of the military to further political aims, is quite a different matter.

 

But I did think of something which maybe I should have mentioned. In terms of what I meant by respect, I do not mean the sort of respect that most people have for all others, where you respect their opinions, respect their individuality, treat them as they would wish to be treated, etc., which are reflect that you hold others in some respect. I am talking about the relatively common idea that people from the armed forces (soldiers especially) and sometimes policemen are afforded a level of respect and high-esteem distinct from almost all others. It is not deserved in my opinion from simply risking one's life to further political aims, yet such people do have my respect in the former sense.

 

 

And thats just the stuff i was involved in, your "debate" is flawed and frankly becoming offensive to me so i wont rise anymore. Stick to your opinions but i hope that if you ever get a chance to meet and chat to any soldiers you make them aware of your opinions so they can retaunt without the mask of fancy words and walls of text.

 

Ok, I was just asking for you to demonstrate how the debate is flawed, but nobody has done that.

I find it quite odd that you think it is offensive to not support the troops and that they should be respected (if I am right in thinking in the sense of high esteem and more deservedness of being a member of society). I could find it equally offensive to be expected to have a sense of (I don't know) deference or high esteem for such people because I place difference emphasis and importance to things, such as the issue of politics and the role of the soldier as potentially as murderer of other soldiers, I hate the idea that soldiers are just the pawns of the governments when they go to war. And for that reason I could find it offensive, but I don't. I have no disdain of the people who become soldiers, I think their bravery is very admirable but they should not be putting their lives on the risk.

 

I dont over this, my daughter is 'seeing' a boy in the army, hes only a kid, he joined the army (he is an engineer) because the employment prospects in the North of England are seriously bad. I had not considered this before, I always thought people joined the army because they wanted to be fighters.

 

This is something I discussed with P.K., although he didn't seem to hold the view that prospects for a good deal of working class people make a career in the army seem more attractive. But what do you think of the point of view that it could be seen as a sad thing that young men are willing to take a career in the army where they are risking their lives on behalf of the few in government because their prospects for a different job are so bad?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Dolce, has a right to his opinion, it differs from mine I agree.

 

But he does have a right to it.

 

We all need a devils advocate...............

 

Yeah I would agree that concepts and ideas of how our society works should be criticised rather than accepted as given. Though it isn't just about playing the devil's advocate, it isn't simply for the sake of argument, based on my understanding of nation states, the government, the military and armed forces I do not hold the conventional view on their purpose and worth. I am not on here to just get people worked up, if people think that then I genuinely shocks me that people think the conventional view cannot be criticised because it is so apparently obvious.

 

But I do think the issue of SUPPORT is more interesting than the one of RESPECT for soldiers.

[Skeddan]

IMO there can be a kind of cynical exploitation - honouring the brave soldiers to glorify serving 'queen and country', promote patriotism and nationalistic sentiments and legitimise often very questionable use of armed forces. (No disrespect to military who IMO deserve better, but to the politicians who capitalise on this).

 

I find it slightly hypocritical - especially when it lapses into smug jingoistic self-congratulation - or even when people feel that proper respect has been given. More often it lapses into showing respect for giving service to the cause - and the loyalty and 'sacrifice' rather than real concern for those who suffer the hardships, trauma and often terrible costs of armed conflict.

 

When even today there are combat veterans who are homeless, with no adequate support or assistance, the notion of such national event of 'showing respect' sits very uncomfortably. This can often slip into smug sanctimonious formulaic rhetoric and condescending cliches. 'Lest we forget' and other trite phrases which ring hollow in mouths of people who know little beyond their sanitised notion of war. It so often seems terribly naive - like fine words about honouring the sacrifice of women who were raped in war - but better that naive normality than not.

 

This doesn't seem to have been some MoD PR exercise, or 'support the war effort' - rather just sending cards and sweets and reminders of home and a childish innocence which probably means a great deal more than all the fine speeches by politicians and dignitaries. To me it says a lot more than talk about honour, sacrifice, courage, service and the like. IMO it's what Remembrance day should really be about: 'lest we forget, they were our children too'.

[John]

and in support with Skeddan, this is not just a UK issue, look at the support US soldiers get..even when they are serving.

 

But still I stand that the Individual is not responsible for Government Politics etc.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

IMO there can be a kind of cynical exploitation - honouring the brave soldiers to glorify serving 'queen and country', promote patriotism and nationalistic sentiments and legitimise often very questionable use of armed forces. (No disrespect to military who IMO deserve better, but to the politicians who capitalise on this).

 

Agree with you completely. It is absolutely disgusting that this occurs, but the truth could never be explained, so they tell lies instead.

 

More often it lapses into showing respect for giving service to the cause - and the loyalty and 'sacrifice' rather than real concern for those who suffer the hardships, trauma and often terrible costs of armed conflict.

 

I often get the feeling that such notions, including one where we should hold military men in high esteem and be proud of them to be rather discrete and jumbled up together in the psyche of the general public.

 

I definitely agree with you.

 

and in support with Skeddan, this is not just a UK issue, look at the support US soldiers get..even when they are serving.

 

But still I stand that the Individual is not responsible for Government Politics etc.

 

American patriotism and support for the troops no matter what they are doing is just mental. And thanks god we don't have people canvassing the carparks and public places like you do in the USA.

 

Oh I agree, the soldier is not RESPONSIBLE for politics. But you can't support the troops (who are tools implementing the politics goals) if you don't agree with the politics. That's to me seems obvious if one takes a conventional look at things, however, i disagree with the system that gives the need or desire to have armed forces.

[Albert Tatlock]

Oh I agree, the soldier is not RESPONSIBLE for politics. But you can't support the troops (who are tools implementing the politics goals) if you don't agree with the politics.

As I said earlier...

 

I think some people here are confusing the abuse and misuse of British forces by Bush and Blair/Broon, with the 'covenant'. The two issues are quite separate.

...like you.

[Sidney]

I find it difficult to understand how those who have never served in the forces think they have the right to criticize those who do. Until you have worn the uniform and actually witnessed and participated in what is required of a modern day soldier then you really do not fully understand what you are talking about.

It's not all about fighting wars dictated by ignorant politicians, a lot of the operations conducted by British forces in the last 20 years have been humanitarian in nature; Rwanda being a prime example.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Oh I agree, the soldier is not RESPONSIBLE for politics. But you can't support the troops (who are tools implementing the politics goals) if you don't agree with the politics.

As I said earlier...

 

I think some people here are confusing the abuse and misuse of British forces by Bush and Blair/Broon, with the 'covenant'. The two issues are quite separate.

...like you.

 

Aah ok, I see what you are saying. In terms of the Iraq War, I was using that as an example of when the government embarks on a flawed and badly thought out scheme. I was not referring to how the soldiers are treated and looked after.

If a government declares war or starts a campaign that is very badly thought out, that could put civilians lives at risk (wherever they may be), or is simply belligerent, etc., then there will be a lot of public opposition. But what I noticed with the Afghan conflict and Iraq are people who do not support the war but say they support the soldiers. This is nothing but contradictory. It hasn't been stated in reference to the covenant, rather it implicitly gives a pat on the back to their efforts

[thebees]

as a sad thing that young men are willing to take a career in the army where they are risking their lives on behalf of the few in government because their prospects for a different job are so bad?

 

Oh too right. I understand your passion for this subject LDV but, it would take me too long to explain why its a tad misguided and one needs to make Dinner, mr Bees will be home from work soon...and if he gets home & dinner isnt on the table...

 

To support soldiers is in no way a support of the war.

[Albert Tatlock]

Oh I agree, the soldier is not RESPONSIBLE for politics. But you can't support the troops (who are tools implementing the politics goals) if you don't agree with the politics.

As I said earlier...

 

I think some people here are confusing the abuse and misuse of British forces by Bush and Blair/Broon, with the 'covenant'. The two issues are quite separate.

...like you.

But what I noticed with the Afghan conflict and Iraq are people who do not support the war but say they support the soldiers. This is nothing but contradictory. It hasn't been stated in reference to the covenant, rather it implicitly gives a pat on the back to their efforts

It isn't contradictory - that is exactly the difference between them not supporting the abuse and misuse of British forces by Bush and Blair/Broon (the Iraq/Afghan wars) and supporting the 'covenant'.

 

The Military Covenant says "our Armed Forces will be called upon to make personal sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice in the service of the Nation. In putting the needs of the nation and Armed Forces, before their own, they forgo some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces. In return, servicemen and women must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they (and their families) will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service. In the same way, the unique nature of military operations means that our Armed Forces differs from all other institutions, and must be sustained and provided for accordingly by the nation. This mutual obligation forms the Military Covenant between the nation, our Armed Forces and each individual member; an unbreakable common bond of identity, loyalty and responsibility which has sustained the armed forces and its servicemen and women throughout its history…"

 

Totally different from fighting a war the people don't agree with. You should be venting your spleen at politicians for breaching the covenant by not best representing the interests of the nation, not at the forces.

[John]

here here