Armed Forces Day

[StuartT]

You are such a good advert for national service.

 

Haha, are you trying to wind me up? National service is such an appalling idea. I doubt I could do much to advertise it.

 

 

Military nurses, CMT's, etc are not under a duty to torture their patients - infact it quiet contravenes their position. Even Front Line Infantrymen are not. That some squaddies have abused their positon (and have been taken to task for it) is irrelevant. There may be certain areas where a 'softening up' process is used as a means to extract information, but the welfare of those prisoners is still of concern (a dead or mentally ill prisoner is not much use to someone who wants information) as it doesn't look too good when you're repatriating prisoners.

 

I am not talking about soldiers torturing suspects, but rather the fact that the British government and many others use torture. It is the Armed Forces who 'catch' these suspects. I only bring up this point as you seem eager to portray something commendable in the code of conduct of the army, but this isn't really credible when the Army is complicit in this torture.

 

You totally missed the point anyway, the fact that the majority of servicemen and women are people just doing their job, who are prepared to put their lives on the line for others. You claim those specific examples I have highlighted are somehow exceptions to be applauded. I think what you've missed is that they're not exceptions but are the norm of a people doing their daily job. Army Nurses for example caring for the enemy are far from unusual, and they carry out the same duty of care forall their patients, regardless of status. You could even have a military nurse looking after you next time you are in an NHS hospital, and you wouldn't even know it.

 

I think you are missing the point. These tasks are not part of the normal day to day job - you seem to be focusing on troops and medics, and of course the Armed Forces includes many other areas. A significant proportion of troops may be putting their lives on the line. And the actions of theirs may be selfless and courageous, they may put their lives on the line in place of other soldiers and maybe even sometimes foreign civilians (of recent). So what? Why should society applaud the people simply because they are brave?

 

Besides this argument is moving away from the obviousness of what this is all about. As I and some others have said, this is not about just supporting the troops. If you can't recognise the government agenda in this, i.e. the patriotism and jingoism, then you probably don't understand at all what you are supporting. And are not in reality supporting the people in the Armed Forces, but probably actually doing the reverse.

 

You miss the point again about a lot of things.

 

As for National Service you made the assumption that I was purely talking about the military (although a kick up the arse and the discipline would probably do you some good).

 

A duty of care is a part of the normal everyday job of an Army Nurse and a CMT. It's yourself who is going on about exceptional (and thankfully very rare cases) where individual soldiers have abused their position (& were later called to account for it) and trying to make out it's the norm.

 

You simply demonstrate that you spend far too much time at Uni, spouting shit from textbooks, meanwhile having very little real life experience. Hence why National Service would be a good idea in giving you a wake up call. Whether that service be in the armed forces, or in other publically beneficial areas - that could range from working in a hospital to sweeping the streets. At the moment you're just a rebel without a cause.

[Vulgarian]

We've come to the same deadlock as before. Some people are trying to dissociate the jobs of servicemen from the military institution that they work for. In my opinion that's not really possible. Praise for one is praise for the other, and that's why the government is so keen on this Day - it boosts popular support for the military in general and the conflicts it's involved in, and some of the things the military is involved in are definately not praiseworthy.

 

One one hand you have individual acts of selflessness and bravery by servicemen - which have some merit, everyone has accepted - but on the other hand the injustice, immorality, and destructive nature of war, and the system of military power.

 

How can we applaud the army marching down the street, when they have been participants in a war in Iraq that has caused the deaths of upwards of 100,000 of that country's citizens? (*)

[Sebrof]

The role of the services has changed in the last hundred years. It used to be as much about extending and maintaining the empire as it was about defence of the homeland (which I think most people would consider a good and proper purpose). Now it is meant to be just about the latter.

 

I suspect a lot of servicemen would not have signed on if they had known they would sent to fight in Iraq under false pretences. This is the difficulty with being a soldier - you are at the whim of politicians whose motives may be thoroughly base. It is one reason why I would not sign up to be a soldier (except for circumstances such as WWII).

 

I do sympathise with LDV's view - our armed services have been employed to do things that are far from good and proper - and however nobly some members may have comported themselves, it is hard to give praise where the campaign itself is morally indefensible (I am referring to Iraq; the Afghanistan situation is not nearly so clear-cut).

 

It seems many would-be soldiers share these views. Recruitment figures have been dire in recent years - though perhaps economic circumstances may be changing that.

 

S

[Evil Goblin]

We've come to the same deadlock as before. Some people are trying to dissociate the jobs of servicemen from the military institution that they work for. In my opinion that's not really possible. Praise for one is praise for the other, and that's why the government is so keen on this Day - it boosts popular support for the military in general and the conflicts it's involved in, and some of the things the military is involved in are definately not praiseworthy.

 

One one hand you have individual acts of selflessness and bravery by servicemen - which have some merit, everyone has accepted - but on the other hand the injustice, immorality, and destructive nature of war, and the system of military power.

 

How can we applaud the army marching down the street, when they have been participants in a war in Iraq that has caused the deaths of upwards of 100,000 of that country's citizens? (*)

LDV/Vulgarian - there have always been (and probably always will be) people like you who live in their own ideal world and imagine that, because they are so obviously right, the rest of the world must and inevitably will come around to their way of thinking. Sorry, but the world is actually ruled by harsh realities and always will be. For so long as there are (at least perceived) scarcities of resources (water, oil, arable land, etc.) there will always be wars. Those who are not able and prepared to fight for what they need will go under - a vesion of the great evolutionary struggle.

 

We need our armed forces to fight our corner because, face it, we fight as we need to or we perish.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

A duty of care is a part of the normal everyday job of an Army Nurse and a CMT. It's yourself who is going on about exceptional (and thankfully very rare cases) where individual soldiers have abused their position (& were later called to account for it) and trying to make out it's the norm.

 

Are you referring to torture? My mention of torture was about how other state bodies organised extraordinary rendition and tortured the suspects. It isn't very exceptional at all. The armed forces, intelligence agencies, etc., it is all government. The armed forces are complicit because they are part of this machinery.

 

You simply demonstrate that you spend far too much time at Uni, spouting shit from textbooks, meanwhile having very little real life experience. Hence why National Service would be a good idea in giving you a wake up call. Whether that service be in the armed forces, or in other publically beneficial areas - that could range from working in a hospital to sweeping the streets. At the moment you're just a rebel without a cause.

 

You simply demonstrate that you are having a hard time arguing your position. It is a bit of a cop-out to start claiming I don't know what I am on about because I am a registered student and APPARENTLY have no real life experience and this all comes from textbooks.

 

I don't see what your comments about National Service are really about. You think I need to do something publicly beneficial to understand the world better?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV/Vulgarian - there have always been (and probably always will be) people like you who live in their own ideal world and imagine that, because they are so obviously right, the rest of the world must and inevitably will come around to their way of thinking. Sorry, but the world is actually ruled by harsh realities and always will be. For so long as there are (at least perceived) scarcities of resources (water, oil, arable land, etc.) there will always be wars. Those who are not able and prepared to fight for what they need will go under - a vesion of the great evolutionary struggle.

 

We need our armed forces to fight our corner because, face it, we fight as we need to or we perish.

 

We don't live in the ideal world - we want one. Certainly a better one that does not require an armed forces or something akin to that which exists in every nation state.

 

The problem is that the harsh realities are rarely faced by the public - it is that the majority of people have an understanding of government and therefore the armed forces that sees them as being necessary. And this is largely because people are not taught to think outside of the box in terms of politics and come to the wrong conclusions on what government is for and again therefore what the forces are for. And the people of a nation have an extremely skewed way of looking at conflict and war when it is their government's forces who are in the fight.

 

Scarce resources? Resources are limited in the world but the conflicts have been about powerful interest groups (capitalists) trying to secure control over as much as they can. It is not a reflection of the needs of humanity. In a sense you are correct, for while there is capitalism there will be armed forces. But there isn't anything evolutionary about the Armed Forces today and the fights they wage. One need only look at the Armed Forces of the 17th century or even the 18th century to see different role and purpose.

[bluemonday]

for while there is capitalism there will be armed forces.

 

North Korea, China, Whatever it is now formerly aka Russia.

Can't remember them being capitalist.

So perhaps they, being not capitalist, can do away with their armed forces.

But they won't

In a world of big sticks, he who hasn't got his own big stick is unlikley to prosper however well intentioned.

[Matt Bawden]

You are such a good advert for national service.

 

Haha, are you trying to wind me up? National service is such an appalling idea. I doubt I could do much to advertise it.

 

 

Military nurses, CMT's, etc are not under a duty to torture their patients - infact it quiet contravenes their position. Even Front Line Infantrymen are not. That some squaddies have abused their positon (and have been taken to task for it) is irrelevant. There may be certain areas where a 'softening up' process is used as a means to extract information, but the welfare of those prisoners is still of concern (a dead or mentally ill prisoner is not much use to someone who wants information) as it doesn't look too good when you're repatriating prisoners.

 

I am not talking about soldiers torturing suspects, but rather the fact that the British government and many others use torture. It is the Armed Forces who 'catch' these suspects. I only bring up this point as you seem eager to portray something commendable in the code of conduct of the army, but this isn't really credible when the Army is complicit in this torture.

 

You totally missed the point anyway, the fact that the majority of servicemen and women are people just doing their job, who are prepared to put their lives on the line for others. You claim those specific examples I have highlighted are somehow exceptions to be applauded. I think what you've missed is that they're not exceptions but are the norm of a people doing their daily job. Army Nurses for example caring for the enemy are far from unusual, and they carry out the same duty of care forall their patients, regardless of status. You could even have a military nurse looking after you next time you are in an NHS hospital, and you wouldn't even know it.

 

I think you are missing the point. These tasks are not part of the normal day to day job - you seem to be focusing on troops and medics, and of course the Armed Forces includes many other areas. A significant proportion of troops may be putting their lives on the line. And the actions of theirs may be selfless and courageous, they may put their lives on the line in place of other soldiers and maybe even sometimes foreign civilians (of recent). So what? Why should society applaud the people simply because they are brave?

 

Besides this argument is moving away from the obviousness of what this is all about. As I and some others have said, this is not about just supporting the troops. If you can't recognise the government agenda in this, i.e. the patriotism and jingoism, then you probably don't understand at all what you are supporting. And are not in reality supporting the people in the Armed Forces, but probably actually doing the reverse.

 

You miss the point again about a lot of things.

 

As for National Service you made the assumption that I was purely talking about the military (although a kick up the arse and the discipline would probably do you some good).

 

A duty of care is a part of the normal everyday job of an Army Nurse and a CMT. It's yourself who is going on about exceptional (and thankfully very rare cases) where individual soldiers have abused their position (& were later called to account for it) and trying to make out it's the norm.

 

You simply demonstrate that you spend far too much time at Uni, spouting shit from textbooks, meanwhile having very little real life experience. Hence why National Service would be a good idea in giving you a wake up call. Whether that service be in the armed forces, or in other publically beneficial areas - that could range from working in a hospital to sweeping the streets. At the moment you're just a rebel without a cause.

 

 

You're not related to Kim Jong Il are you cos he likes everyone under governmental control too

[La_Dolce_Vita]

for while there is capitalism there will be armed forces.

 

North Korea, China, Whatever it is now formerly aka Russia.

Can't remember them being capitalist.

So perhaps they, being not capitalist, can do away with their armed forces.

But they won't

In a world of big sticks, he who hasn't got his own big stick is unlikley to prosper however well intentioned.

 

Well for most of their history I wouldn't say the leaders in China, Russian, and North Korea had good intentions for their people. Indifference at best. I think you make a good point, they were under threat from neighbours and other powers, although they were also provocative in their behaviour. They may also have been necessary. But more importantly, it is worth looking at the similarities between liberal democracies and these regimes. Who monopolises power in the state and how can they be sure to maintain that power, i.e. what is their last resort? They use the armed forces to keep the people in check.

[Irwezsh]

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/Isle-of-Man...utes.5413994.jp

 

In the Isle of Man Armed Forces Day will be formally celebrated on July 26.

 

This is awful. As Veteran's Day I supported this. However I almost feel as if I need to protest at it now. I personally believe they are trying to shift the focus from the actual veterans, to them being tools of the political system which has put the current troops where they are.

 

I will support veterans and remember sacrafices. However I will not support our troops, while they remain in wars that have been unsucessful and in one case illegal.

 

Though don't worry I won't protest at it.

[P.K.]

I suspect a lot of servicemen would not have signed on if they had known they would sent to fight in Iraq under false pretences. This is the difficulty with being a soldier - you are at the whim of politicians whose motives may be thoroughly base. It is one reason why I would not sign up to be a soldier (except for circumstances such as WWII).

 

I do sympathise with LDV's view - our armed services have been employed to do things that are far from good and proper - and however nobly some members may have comported themselves, it is hard to give praise where the campaign itself is morally indefensible (I am referring to Iraq; the Afghanistan situation is not nearly so clear-cut).

 

It seems many would-be soldiers share these views. Recruitment figures have been dire in recent years - though perhaps economic circumstances may be changing that.

 

S

This isn't a case of bullshit but rather do you want Small, Medium or Large? Hmmm - Large it is then.

 

Your suspicions are groundless. You sign up, particularly in the "professional" regiments, in the frank expectation of getting in the shit. And why you're there is meaningless to you, the fact you are there is what matters. As to your "morally indefensible" bollocks if you can't take a joke then you shouldn't have joined. Simple as.

 

I personally believe they are trying to shift the focus from the actual veterans, to them being tools of the political system which has put the current troops where they are.

 

I will support veterans and remember sacrafices. However I will not support our troops, while they remain in wars that have been unsucessful and in one case illegal.

This illegal war, do you mean the HoC didn't vote on it then? Well I never...

 

It would appear that there are still fools around who can't grasp the simple concept that in some parts of the world like Afghanistan, Iraq (as was), Darfur etc etc power comes from the barrel of a gun. Now war is a nasty, dirty, miserable business but as the only way to end wars is to have them then some of those who signed up to do your killing for you come home in a coffin to a devastated family. It's very sad but it is what it is.

[Evil Goblin]

PK - amazing! I heartily agree with you!

[La_Dolce_Vita]

to do your killing for you come home in a coffin to a devastated family. It's very sad but it is what it is.

 

Whose killing? On whose behalf, PK?

[P.K.]

Whose killing? On whose behalf, PK?

The UK Armed Forces act on behalf of the UK electorate. It's a democracy you know...

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Whose killing? On whose behalf, PK?

The UK Armed Forces act on behalf of the UK electorate. It's a democracy you know...

 

That is how it is supposed to be understood. If you really believe that government exists to service the people and all the liberal thinking behind why and how government works then it makes sense. But it isn't how I see things work. And it doesn't matter whether the system we live in is CALLED a democracy. If a 'people's government' means nothing more than the citizen casting a vote then it is far from my ideo of democracy.