If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Why is being in the Army considered so noble and heroic?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I'm not trying to be offensive here, just actually quite curious -
The UK press has been dominated over the last week about the story of the first female soldier to be killed in Iraq. Her and the other guys killed have been praised for being so heroic, noble, courageous, deserved of our respect, brave, etc.
Now, hang on a minute - isn't the majority of the country (and if not the majority, easily 40-50%) opposed (in many cases, heavily strongly opposed) to us going to war against Iraq and Afghanistan? If it were the case they'd gone out to fight and this was deemed necessary/essential to protect our country then fair enough, of course they should get such respect. But what I'm feeling is current recent recruits in the Army are making the active decision choosing to go to Iraq/Afghanistan, ie they know if they sign up that's what they could be in for, and as we know its meant the killing of thousands of innocent people. Should they really deserve such respect, is it really such a noble job to be involved in the killing of thousands of innocent people?
Btw I'm not saying if they've died they should be getting any criticism whatsoever, its just they've been in the press recently about that so its rekindled my interest - I'm talking about people currently out there serving, why is there a pretty unanimous "Support Our Troops" message from the whole country despite so many (the majority I'd think) being against the wars we're currently involved in, and Army people having the choice whether to be involved or not (particularly new recruits who have joined post the beginning of these wars)?
The UK press has been dominated over the last week about the story of the first female soldier to be killed in Iraq. Her and the other guys killed have been praised for being so heroic, noble, courageous, deserved of our respect, brave, etc.
Now, hang on a minute - isn't the majority of the country (and if not the majority, easily 40-50%) opposed (in many cases, heavily strongly opposed) to us going to war against Iraq and Afghanistan? If it were the case they'd gone out to fight and this was deemed necessary/essential to protect our country then fair enough, of course they should get such respect. But what I'm feeling is current recent recruits in the Army are making the active decision choosing to go to Iraq/Afghanistan, ie they know if they sign up that's what they could be in for, and as we know its meant the killing of thousands of innocent people. Should they really deserve such respect, is it really such a noble job to be involved in the killing of thousands of innocent people?
Btw I'm not saying if they've died they should be getting any criticism whatsoever, its just they've been in the press recently about that so its rekindled my interest - I'm talking about people currently out there serving, why is there a pretty unanimous "Support Our Troops" message from the whole country despite so many (the majority I'd think) being against the wars we're currently involved in, and Army people having the choice whether to be involved or not (particularly new recruits who have joined post the beginning of these wars)?
0
Comments
Therefore we should in my opinion criticise politicians for the wars we engage in and soldiers should be commended for going into dangerous areas on our behalf (even if we don't want them there, it's not their choice I don't think - when you sign up you sign up for either everything or nothing)
That's true but I think it's a big thing for the media to pick up on as women are probably seen as more 'precious' than men, and children more 'precious' than women, etc. I don't know exactly how it works I guess the best way to think of it is if you watch Titanic 'women and children first'...
...but I don't think any female soldier who joins up necessarily expects this special 'no front line' treatment, it's more society. Just look at GI Jane :thumb: "suck my dick"
edit: tinkler said almost the same as me above, scary!
But incidentally, I don't think it's fair to be criticising individual soldiers. Not to sound too patronising, but plenty of soldiers are people who perhaps didn't get good grades at school, and saw the military as a good way of learning a skill or trade. Why the government can't provide adequate training for such people outside of the context of war is something you'll have to take up with them, but I wouldn't blame the people who took them up on the offer.
Unless you're a person who believes we don't need a military, then I think the people who do it deserve our respect. Any issue with the specific tasks they're asked to do should be with the government of the day, not the military. And incidentally, I support thejob they're doing in Afghanistan, if not Iraq.
As for the first female soldier dying, I thought it was newsworthy because it highlighted the nature of the operation quite well. Women are still not allowed on the front line, and the fact that a woman died highlighted the fact that this is a war where all of the soldiers are essentially on the front line at all times. But even without that, I suppose it's a noteworthy point. There have been a lot of debates in the past as to whether women should be allowed in the military, so I think highlighting the first female death is a valid story.
Even the "Stop the War" coalition support the troops, however in a "bring them home and keep them safe" stance.
I respect our soldiers, they do a job that is essential, they risk their lives and help keep us safe.
I've just come back from the USA, and they've got posters everywhere with "support our troops" e.t.c. which i think it's a shame we can't do here.
its not to do with gender as much as most of the families wanted to be left alone, but that soldiers (the females) didnt ask to be left alone. I guess people cope with their grief in different ways...................and THEN the media had a field day about it being the first woman - an interesting spin on the story etc
But some people- me included to a degree- object to the elevation to demi-gods to anyone who serves with the Armed Forces abroad. It gets a bit heavy and it is not a fair or realistic assertion.
Though not as heavy in the US, when it is not unheard of for PA announcers at sports grounds or even pilots in airplanes to ask for members of the military to stand up so people can applaud them and 'thank them'.
It's not just what each individual soldier does, it's the sacrifice I think. It's hard to put into words. But if you see WW2 veterans - they were innocent but saw and even committed horrors in defence of their, our freedoms. I see today's soldiers and indeed the soldiers as tomorrow as fulfilling exactly the same role and that's what they should be thanked for. It is the institution of the armed forces that protects and serves our needs and does what we don't want to do and what would be too horrific for many of us to do.
It is the state of politics in the current era (well, since the end of WW2 if you think about it, the cold war and since has all been about manufacturing enemies to look at conflicts - who was it that said we have the potential to be the first generation in history to see a world without wars?
But that doesn't change the fact that they're there, willing to take bullets and bombs because we're not, even if we pay them, it's being done to protect our liberty and safety.
I don't know if that makes sense, but it does to me. I respect the institution and I see soldiers as representatives of that institution and so respect them (like you might respect a PC... or not lol
But the job they do isn't ordinary. At the end of the day when politcos, and diplomats, journos and the Islington Rifles have had there say - it falls down to the bloke on the ground to kill or be killed and to do the democratically elected Government's will by force of arms.
That's like saying you don't deserve any respect if you're a surgeon because being a surgeon means you may be involved in the death of innocent people, and you knew before you became a surgeon that you might be involved in the death of innocent people. Our soldiers do not go to work to kill innocent people, they go to work to protect and defend innocent people. If innocent civvies are killed it is because it was unavoidable or accidental.
While trying to defend innocent civilians baddies shoot at them and try to blow them up. It is courageous to try to defend innocent people while baddies are trying to shoot you and blow you up. People who do so are deserving of respect because it is not an easy thing to do, because it is essentially putting yourself in danger, and possibly giving your life, for the sake of other people. The fact that the majority of people may be opposed to those wars doesn't change that. You obviously don't believe it, but most politicians consider the war in Afghanistan and the training of Iraqi soldiers to be 'necessary/essential' to our safety.
You're making a lot of the fact that those who have recently joined the army chose to do so knowing that they may be sent to Iraq/Afghanistan because you think they've been sent there to kill innocent civilians - that's not the case.
Sounds like someones talking out the wrong end here......
Id like to know why you think its not heroic?
The way I see it, no one goes to war, there is no war to fight.
Personally, I never supported the war in Afghanistan myself. I thought that it's all well and good getting rid of the Taliban, but what on earth are you going to replace it with? As for Iraq, I was completely torn before the conflict. When it started, I threw my weight behind it as I believed it was patriotic to do so. Weeks later, I began to realise just how wrong I had been to do so. I bitterly regret ever supporting the war in Iraq. British troops out there were meant to be fighting for Queen and country, as they have done so brilliantly over many hundreds of years. This time, they were fighting for Bush, Blair and American interests. A shameful betrayal by useless politicians who have probably never seen a bullet in their lives.
In particular, you should be aiming all your fire towards the one man who sent them there - Tony Blair. This monster took the UK into war on the basis of a pack of lies. Thanks to his fibbing, and his pathetic slavishness towards the USA, hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq and Afghanistan are now dead. And is he repentent for the sins he has committed, for holier-than-thou Blair proclaimeth to be a religious man? Not in the slightest. No, he's earning millions from making crap speeches and working for American banks. History will almost certainly conclude now that Tony Blair's foreign policy was decided merely out of personal interest. How ironic that the man who says passing the Human Rights Act was the best thing his government ever did is now considered to have committed crimes against humanity.
Another note though, (this may seem sterotypical, but it's true for the most) teenagers these days think of war as being an fun time, seeing the world, easy work with many benifits of money and trade skills. Yet, how many stories do you hear of injured, disabled young people coming back from war, regretting ever going and they just get tossed aside with money from the government.