La_Dolce_Vita Posted June 20, 2009 Author Share Posted June 20, 2009 LDV - you really do live on Planet La-La, don't you? Just what do you think the Government Agenda is in Afghanistan? It is about destroying the ability of Muslim-Fundamentalist terrorists to train and mount attacks on British and other innocent citizens around the world from a safe enclave. Personally, I am very grateful for those who are putting their lives on the line for the rest of us (including you, you ungrateful wretch). The agenda was originally to wipe out Al Qaeda and capture/kill Bin Laden. And they failed - though responsibility for this failure is the American government's, not the British. The war being fought now is of a very different quality to that which began in 2001-2002. The Taliban who were no threat to the UK or the USA are now being chased around the region. It is argued that this is so that Al Qaeda do not reestablish themselves, but the Taliban are hardly going to welcome to their existence if they remained in power. Moreover, unless a new government in Afghanistan has a great deal of authority, surpassing that of the Taliban, it is unlikely that the country would be rid of Al Qaeda. Quite understandably, some civilians of the country will be led to join Al Qaeda or other fundamentalist groups given the role of the British and American forces in the country. It is ludicrous to belief that safe enclaves can be eradicated across the world. You can reduce enclaves to the size of apartments or basements but the threat still exists. But the role of the armed forces can only increase hatred. This is especially the case for those who don't feel so grateful when their family, friends, and towns have been blasted apart. In any case, even if Afghanistan was a'good' war. What about Iraq, WW1, or Suez where we can all say with much certainty that these were wrong. Where is the honour? What does support mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortalpuppet Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 WW1, or Suez where we can all say with much certainty that these were wrong. Where is the honour? What does support mean? Good luck explaining that to any survivors and there relatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted June 20, 2009 Author Share Posted June 20, 2009 Good luck explaining that to any survivors and there relatives. You do understand what I am talking about, don't you? I assume you do unless you are EXTREMELY patriotic. I am not talking about recognising their deaths - the waste and horror of it. I am talking about concepts of honour and support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortalpuppet Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 recognising their deaths - the waste and horror is the whole point of having a support the armed forces day regardless of the conflict they have served in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted June 20, 2009 Author Share Posted June 20, 2009 recognising their deaths - the waste and horror is the whole point of having a support the armed forces day regardless of the conflict they have served in. No, I disagree. Recognising the horrors of war and the unnecessary waste of life in WW1, for example, is quite a different thing to offering support to the armed forces. Besides it would seem that it is not what this Armed Forces Day is about. It partly a celebration of their duties and an attempt to recognise a supposed role that they have to play in society. And the meaning of support (though largely a meaningless word in this context) seems to be around giving the armed forces a 'pat on the back' or expressing solidarity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortalpuppet Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 And do explain why giving the armed forces a pat on the back is so wrong? If its about your labour shite again dont bother, this is about the individuals who serve the armed forces not the government that run them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 I agree with LDV. We already have a day to dedicated to the armed forces - remembrance day - when prayers and thoughts are normally offered (whatever that means) for people currently serving, as well as for the dead. This is an attempt by the government to boost support for the armed forces through patriotism, because by doing so they strengthen public support for their immoral wars. Anyone voicing objections to their wars is branded unpatriotic and ungrateful, as we have seen. When i heard of this idea i thought 'The government must think we're all impressional morons'. After reading the responses in this thread, i think they're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortalpuppet Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Rememberance day is totally different to a support the armed forces day. Opinions are like arseholes, everyones got one. I get wound up (rightly or wrongly.) when people dont offer respect to the men and women who are willing to die for their mates while carrying out orders given to them by their countries leaders. If you disagree with the leaders then vote them out, dont take it out on the people who dont make the high end decisions and just want to get on with the job they are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 I do not believe that many people join the british military today out of a sense of duty. I have no evidence however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted June 20, 2009 Author Share Posted June 20, 2009 And do explain why giving the armed forces a pat on the back is so wrong? If its about your labour shite again dont bother, this is about the individuals who serve the armed forces not the government that run them. Why? Because their role deserves no 'pat on the back'. I am not saying that the men/women of the armed forces do not work hard and not saying that there are a classification of duties that fall under what can be termed 'benign', e.g. disaster relief. But I don't give people a 'pat on the back' for work that actually makes the world worse, oppresses other people, involves killing - including those of innocents, and furthers the government and elites agenda. Do, for example, US troops deserve a 'pat on the back' for their role in reducing large areas of Fallujah to rubble? Does the warplane pilot deserve a 'pat on the back' for accidentally bombing some civilians? This is the problem I see with your perspective because you, like many, want to create distinctions between the tasks that the forces are called upon to carry out and their overall job. But the overall job comprises of these tasks. This isn't about criticising what government gets into power but recognising that the military is a tool to be used by ALL governments for their interest, not the interests of the people. Rememberance day is totally different to a support the armed forces day. This is the point, don't support what they do and the institution, but remember those died, not with ideas of glory, honour and pride, but with horror, sadness and reflection. Opinions are like arseholes, everyones got one. I get wound up (rightly or wrongly.) when people dont offer respect to the men and women who are willing to die for their mates while carrying out orders given to them by their countries leaders. If you disagree with the leaders then vote them out, dont take it out on the people who dont make the high end decisions and just want to get on with the job they are doing. You are right, a distinction should be made between the people who serve and their job, but this is necessary only for recognising that such people are like all other workers - earning a living. But if someone works hard but does bad work, I don't give them a 'pat on the back'. But I do not think less of them as human beings, i.e. I don't think of them with disrespect and disdain as people. I don't know what you mean by being wound up by those who do not respect those in the armed forces. What do you mean by respect? In any case, like I said, if someone flagrantly risked their life for nothing I would not respect that. The fact that such deaths are represented under the myth of a worthy cause only makes me cross and certainly doesn't want me to offer respect in the sense of deference or some small form of awe. And this is why I am writing so much about it because I find it offensive that such 'brain rot' is being splashed on the TV to dupe the public into having a misguided understanding of what the military is. I find it offensive that words such as support and honourare used to mislead the public and exploit residual feelings of patriotism that should be left to disappear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananaman Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 The agenda was originally to wipe out Al Qaeda and capture/kill Bin Laden. And they failed - though responsibility for this failure is the American government's, not the British. Idiot. Not that you could ever man up enough to speak to a serving or ex soldier, sailor or airman. They know why they're in Afghanistan. And it certainly isn't the piss and shit filled wind up merchant bag of bollock you're spouting. Get a grip! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted June 21, 2009 Author Share Posted June 21, 2009 What a stupid thing to say, why do I need to go and speak to a serviceman? Well go on then...why are they there? (And do you really still think that I don't believe what I am saying, but am saying it simply to troll?) All you are giving off is hot air. Why do you think what I am saying is piss and shit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananaman Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Well go on then...why are they there? (And do you really still think that I don't believe what I am saying, but am saying it simply to troll?) I said Man UP. Not man enough! Though looking at it - Pfftttt! like I said, if someone flagrantly risked their life for nothing I would not respect that. The fact that such deaths are represented under the myth of a worthy cause only makes me cross and certainly doesn't want me to offer respect in the sense of deference or some small form of awe. All the lads I know in the Rifles and Paras know they are there to wipe out the drugs. But drugs aren't bad in your wierd and wonderful lala land. A very good friend of mine is now going back for his fourth tour in Afghanistan. A 27 year old Corporal. Who could have stayed in the UK and got his 3rd stripe . But no, he would rather help, go and do his bit for his mates (The Royal Greenjackets is his home regiment) but he's a specialist attached to the Paras with ermmmmm argghhh, can't remember the name of his battle group. It's a loyalty thing for those lads and lasses, but what would you know about that hey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted June 21, 2009 Author Share Posted June 21, 2009 All the lads I know in the Rifles and Paras know they are there to wipe out the drugs. But drugs aren't bad in your wierd and wonderful lala land. A very good friend of mine is now going back for his fourth tour in Afghanistan. A 27 year old Corporal. Who could have stayed in the UK and got his 3rd stripe . But no, he would rather help, go and do his bit for his mates (The Royal Greenjackets is his home regiment) but he's a specialist attached to the Paras with ermmmmm argghhh, can't remember the name of his battle group. It's a loyalty thing for those lads and lasses, but what would you know about that hey. The reasons why the Army was originally sent there had nothing to do with drugs. As to the war they are fighting now, the war on drugs is not grand strategy but is a facet of the counter-insurgency operations that are being adopted...which are focused upon removing Taliban control. I have never said drugs are not bad. I have explained that I disagree with the authoritarian arseholes who think they have to right to dictate whether others should take them or not, and believe their use should be punished. I can comprehend the loyalty to one's friends and mates, and understand why it would be so strong in the armed forces. But I wasn't talking about anything to do with loyalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananaman Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 The reasons why the Army was originally sent there had nothing to do with drugs. As to the war they are fighting now, the war on drugs is not grand strategy but is a facet of the counter-insurgency operations that are being adopted...which are focused upon removing Taliban control. And that's a bad thing? Why has the Pakistani army mobilised to remove the Taliban from their back yard? Trust me LDV - It's purely drugs and the excuse to go in was the pretence of catching Bin Laden. He's a nothing militarily. Pyschlogically yes he's massive. But other than the Arab benefactors, where do the Jihadists get their money from? It certainly isn't from pisspot Wannabe madrassas in Luton, Bedford, Wolverhampton, Finsbury Park, Rochdale and Tipton. That's just a drop in the ocean. Last time a friend of mine was in Helmand his Troop were having to fight very well trained (but still smacked out of their skulls) Talibs wearing full on body armour and Kevlar helmets. Secure radio systems (to a point he heheee, I know a hell of a lot of CSA(V)'s too (god they're boring people)). That sort of stuff does not come cheap and certainly not from well wishers chucking in 2 or 3 quid of their hard earned dole money. All to do with the drugs mate. Really really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.