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
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Sorry, maybe you'd like to elucidate on why either of these two things are wrong, and how the military should be better used (Threats faced by Britain are more closely matched with those to Europe than with any other political entity, and Sierra Leone is a highly morally contentious issue, and one where Britain has made a very real and positive difference). I don't think these two facts are really related to the argument.
I say bollocks to that (sorry admins <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif"> ). That shows IMO a lack of understanding of the problems facing any government in administrating and improving our society, and of the wishes of the majority of the people in this country. What are these projects you speak of? Occasionally money is wasted - hard to avoid - but the sums wasted are generally inconsequential compared to the amount spent. The Dome is the only folly which you could really aim at, one perpetrated by the entire political establishment (more or less) and one where the admittedly large cost was spread over 6 (?) years, making it have rather less effect on budgets than people might suppose. Assuming 900 million and 6 years (approx 150 million a year) this is an appalling waste of money but one that will not effect things in the medium or long term.
You could also argue that it has sustained and encouraged other positive effects. After all, what else would half the media have moaned about for the last few years. That's a joke btw. But if it _had_ worked (not impossible) and had inspired the nation we wouldn't be saying this I think. They got it wrong... I believe the odd mistake should be forgiven.
Apart from that money is spent along the lines that society does want, to tackle the massive problems of healthcare, employment and social deprivation. Compared with spending on subsidising, developing and supporting the arms export industry, which happened massively under Thatcher compared to nowadays, current spending is _very_ moral. This spending still goes to some extent I believe - surely this should be a target for extra funds.
I remember something called Suez... but I would hardly say there have been many great military victories attributable directly to Britain either, and shames too - the Boer war for example. Go back a little further and there is a certain war of independence: but that is being a little unfair and irrelevant.
I think that is a fiction invented by a glamorised image of war and humanity in your head. Husbands/Lovers might go back to die with their wives. I think soldiers would feel no more compulsion than for their squad-mates - on one hand it is argued that they must bond more closely by excluding those who are different, on the other it is argued that they would act in a more highly bonded way towards the women - there are contradictions in these arguments.
As for an instinctive male response to protect women, this is a load of rubbish except where it is imbued occasionally by our culture and traditions around the 'softer sex'. Get out into our society. See the battered wives and children, the weak and drunk men and the cowards. See the young men mistreating and raping women. Never mind refuting your argument, there are much bigger problems we face than a slightly understrength military, caused by issues such as the media and their portrayals of the world, of market forces creating massive gaps in wealth and divisions in society resulting in fragmented communities. The list goes on.
I would also be interested to know what you think Britain needs to be able to defend itself against currently. France, Germany? I don't think so. Russia or China? Highly unlikely and in the latter case, if it fully militarised, we would only be one small part of a much bigger conflict. That scenario is not one to prepare for, but one to avoid, and a bigger British military will not help matters in either direction. It is worth pointing out that the situations where a bigger British military could make a difference to the world are in places such as Sierra Leone and Kosovo - situations you seem to believe should be avoided.
Im ashamed to admit I find myself agreeing with most of your points, but you have made a few minor errors.
The war of independence was over 200 years ago, which is the war i was reffering to when I said "hasn't lost a war in over 2 centuries".
As for suez, with the help of the French (uggh) it is still European compannies that control the Suez canal, and I was under the impression that we won the Boer war???
I am not opposed to our army helping in places such as Kosovo or sierra leone. My point was that it is wrong for the government to overstretch the army, by expecting the ends without providing the means.
In the last part of your post you refer to society's views of women being the softer sex. I agree with this, and this is why women should not fight. Because aren't soldiers part of society? If soldiers believe that women are a weaker more vunerable sex then they will try and protect them, soldiers are still people who have been brought up with society's views instilled into them, from like you said the media and from their peers, it is this belief that would jeopardise the army's effectiveness. My other point is that men find it a lot easier to take life, this is undeniable. It is men who start wars, it is men who create the weapons of war. This is why I ask "can women take life as effectively as men?" As the whole point of a military is to protect your ideology, your citizens and your beliefs by destroying another country's ideology, citizens and beliefs, why does America hate communist countries? Because they conflict with their Ideology. As for rapists, they are just sick individuals on a power trip.
I did say that the war of independence reference wasn't fair for that very reason I believe, or I meant to do so if I didn't. Suez was a bit of a debacle and the Boer war was shameful due to massive human rights issues and violations, including the scorched earth policy and the invention of the concentration camp.
Yeah, I know, I realised when I reread it but couldn't be bothered to lengthen it further. BUT: I hardly think the demands placed on it have overstretched it. Sierra Leone hardly involved that much of a strain, and troops both in Bosnia and Sierra Leone could be withdrawn if there was a bigger more immediate threat, which is very unlikely. It's true that multiple conflicts of this nature could not easily be fought while defending Britain as well, but we are not and should have no wish to be a military superpower ala America.
You're missing the point a little, and mixing up several different issues into one. The softer sex thing is a tradition, no longer adhered to by a much more diverse society than the Victorian middle classes. You might still hold this belief, but I believe you are the exception not the rule. And as I was trying to portray, men do not treat women in real life (and have for the most part never done so) as well as you would like to think.
As for the next point, it is true that men are more aggressive, and hence start more fights, start more wars. This is not related to the ability to kill, but to the ability to lose control and to kill in anger. Women are just as able to kill IMO, but lose control less through aggression. This is a plus point! Also, women I believe generally have higher pain thresholds.
You then confuse ideological conflicts with male aggression. American women hated and hate communism every bit as much as the men, although in a mostly male dominated society the men were and are more visible. America hates and fears Communism because it is the antithesis of capitalism and hence in their eyes of the fabled 'American way of life'. They hate and fear the difference - closer to racism and nationalism than aggression.
The rapists bit, while a partially true statement, misses the point of what I was trying to say, and ignores the more common problem of simple violence in the home and in relationships, almost always towards women. Rape is also not simply the oft held view of physical force to rape, but includes emotional blackmail (inc. husbands forcing themselves on wives) and other forms of male control of women, though these are normally backed by some form of physical intimidation. So again you appear to have missed the point I was trying to make, the deconstruction of the myth of the 'protective male instinct towards women' (as opposed to husbands/wives or very close friends or lovers).
However an army being overstretched is not always due to manpower but can be something like a temporary shortage of ammunition. In this case the unreliable equipment the army is expected to use. The rebels and loyalists in Sierra Leone use the old British semi automatic rifle (i cant remember the exact name) but many people I have spoken to, both in and out of the military believe this to be a superior weapon, for the reason it was over 20 years old and was improved as it was ever going to be. There were very few incidences of this weapon jamming or failing in combat. This is a problem that the paratroopers in Sierra Leone have reported but is something they should never have to report. I have used an SA-80, the weapon is overly complicated, and even the smaller L-98 version that isnt fully automatic is prone to jamming.
I agree with your point about the protection of women, but in ways I still disagree. I still believe that men still view women as a weaker sex, maybe not concsiously, but sub-conciously. Some men do treat women like bags of shit, which is wrong. But this means they also view them as a weaker sex. Meaning the men who dont abuse women are more likely to have a protective instinct. Ask any man if he would physically protect his gf/fiance/wife/sister/mother from attack chances are he would say yes. Replace those people with males and he may still say yes but chances are he would be a lot more hesitant. It is this hesitance and self-preservation instinct which is invaluable on the battlefield. If this s-p instinct is overrided by the desire to protect others at a risk to your own life then it cant be good in that sort of situation. That is why, despite the equality or woman beating in today's society men are still more protective of women than men. It isnt a society based thing, this is something that has been around for thousands of years. Men have always looked out for women, yes they have beaten them which is terrible, but they have always done their best to protect them (women and children first). Because without women society cannot evolve, and population cannot increase, which is the underlying motivation of the human mind, to procreate. Without women this is impossible, and the men, sub-consciously realise this. this is why women shouldnt fight.
That it was as successful as it was on the Titanic says a lot about the society of the time and the relatively sedate nature of the sinking.(see gas chambers for evidence of instinctive behavior)
Rot.
one man can have hundreds of children, a woman gives out after around 10.
We don't want soldiers, but we still need them. we do our best to reduce our reliance on them by making real killing machines, but we still dehumanize working class men to the point that they become an effective fighting unit. That we don't use women is a reflection of our society not our nature - or are you going to claim the Israel army is the hight of PC?