Home Politics & Debate
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 ✨

So what exactly would you be prepared to die for?

2456

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    DEANO MAC wrote:
    its too late though isnt it? what can we do?
    probably is to late so we may as well carry on consuming and worshipping the stupidest.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd die to protect the ones I love. I'd die to protect an innocent. I'd die for my country if it came to it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I was going to join the forces when I was younger but ended up doing better than expected in my A levels and went in for the whole uni thing instead. Very glad of that now.

    As most have said, only in defence of loved ones. I'm certainly not going to go over to the home of someone whose done nothing to me and kill them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thats not what the military is about though.

    The military, especially the army, is all about displine and killing.

    You go into the military and its a 'do as your told'. There is no 'only for immediate defence of the country', there is no 'well if its morally acceptable with tons of evidence and reasoning'. You go in, you do as your told. The squaddies do what there sergent says, the sergent does what his CO says and so on up the chain.

    Being in the amry you are taught kill. Pure and simple. The police defend the day to day folk, they apprehend criminals and uphold the law. The army is trained and used to kill people and to defend areas deemed of strateic value.

    All this stuff linking this to Iraq is mute point, even more so since there is no draft and won't be for this conflict.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Walkindude wrote:
    Thats not what the military is about though.

    The military, especially the army, is all about displine and killing.

    You go into the military and its a 'do as your told'. There is no 'only for immediate defence of the country', there is no 'well if its morally acceptable with tons of evidence and reasoning'. You go in, you do as your told. The squaddies do what there sergent says, the sergent does what his CO says and so on up the chain.

    Being in the amry you are taught kill. Pure and simple. The police defend the day to day folk, they apprehend criminals and uphold the law. The army is trained and used to kill people and to defend areas deemed of strateic value.
    So you would not question or refuse to take any orders from your commanding officer, no matter what?

    How about if your officers turns out to be a sadistic lunatic who wants you to walk into a village and machine gun every innocent person there (as indeed happened in Vietnam)?

    Would you obey such orders?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thats not what we are on about. I wasn't making a moral argument for indivudual soliders.

    I was just saying what the nature of the military is. You do as your told. If you join, you are gonna get sent to fight, you don't do cozy training exeriese int he moors forever.

    Thats what i mean about Iraq, all these famiulies complaing about how their child is dead.

    and I don't mean to be callous and yes its sad and tragic but there wasn't a draft.

    These soilders willing joined up, knowing they could be sent to war. They accpeted that. You can't complain when it happens, death is the risk you take.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But then again when the deceased decided to join the army they did so on the premise that they would serve this country and put their lives on the line to defend and protect Britain.

    Nobody told them that part of the job might also entitle being shipped to nations thousands of miles away to fight pointless and illegal wars for the sole reason that our Prime Minister is sexually attracted to the US President (or whatever it is that makes Blair such willing slave of the Americans).

    Perhaps they should update their contract and conditions to reflect this, so would-be soldiers know exactly what they will be giving their lives for.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, no, no, no no!!!!

    The usual anti-americanims, anti-government, propaganda lies as usual!

    You sing up tot the military to do as you are told. Nothing else. Defending the countries interest is the job. You are sent out to KILL. Your not there to catch crims or stop muggers, you don't patrol the UK streets. That is the police's job.

    You go out to kill who you are told to kill. You defend yoursefl and your colleagues with your life and weapons.

    Iraq serves as defending the nations interests anyway.

    Its exactly int he remit of the solider's duty.

    You cannot cherry pick the wars you do and don't wanna take part in.

    And its not like this is the nazi's either. Hardly making a holocuast and if you say we are that proves how little you know.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Walkindude wrote:
    No, no, no, no no!!!!

    The usual anti-americanims, anti-government, propaganda lies as usual!
    What 'anti-americanism' would that be?

    What 'lies'? Are you still under the deluded illusion that the war was legal?

    Please, join the real world when you're ready...
    You sing up tot the military to do as you are told. Nothing else. Defending the countries interest is the job. You are sent out to KILL. Your not there to catch crims or stop muggers, you don't patrol the UK streets. That is the police's job.
    Funnily enough that's exactly what the UK soldiers are doing in Iraq... patrolling the streets and 'keeping law and order' (LOL).
    Iraq serves as defending the nations interests anyway.
    No it doesn't. When you commit illegal actions and anger 2 billion poeple for no good reason whatsoever, you're not doing much of a service to this country. As the families of 52 dead London commuters could tell you.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I would die not to be put in an army, it's against everything I believe...
    I would die to secure a safer world for my children (but not in an army)...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    What 'anti-americanism' would that be?

    What 'lies'? Are you still under the deluded illusion that the war was legal?

    Please, join the real world when you're ready...

    Funnily enough that's exactly what the UK soldiers are doing in Iraq... patrolling the streets and 'keeping law and order' (LOL).

    No it doesn't. When you commit illegal actions and anger 2 billion poeple for no good reason whatsoever, you're not doing much of a service to this country. As the families of 52 dead London commuters could tell you.


    I am not repeating myself again aladdin. If it makes you feel big to lay down some insutls, fair enough.

    Yes thats what they are doing, since Iraq lost its army and police force and had to built up again so who had to fill in the job? :rolleyes:

    That is not the primary aim of the army though :rolleyes:

    Yes the families of the 52 dead london commuters really blame Iraq for it. That really is sick, using the death of those innocent people to make a comeback ina debate. Talk to them all did we? Have their permissiont to say that on there behalf do you?

    yes, we really angered them by helping them out when russia invaded eh? :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Walkindude wrote:
    Being in the amry you are taught kill. Pure and simple. The police defend the day to day folk, they apprehend criminals and uphold the law. The army is trained and used to kill people and to defend areas deemed of strateic value.
    Actually I think the majority of time, the army is involved mainly in peace-keeping operations, and helping rebuild wartorn countries, not killing bad guys. Most people who signed up to the army before 9/11 probably expected this to be their main job.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No!

    That is such a misconception.

    The army does do some peace ekeping, though not the nations amry, peace keeping is doen by peace keeprs sent by the uni, not the paprs or marines, except after immediate conflicts.

    the army helps out in rescue missions yes and the do lend a hand.

    There job is not to rebuild war torn countries at all. They protect their contries interest and themselves, sometimes the natives of that country to.

    If they expected this to be tiehr mian ob they were naive. The army is job is to be an offensive and defenisve unit for the interests of the cuntry ordered by the superiors in chain command.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Walkindude wrote:
    I am not repeating myself again aladdin. If it makes you feel big to lay down some insutls, fair enough.
    What insults would those be then? :confused:
    Yes thats what they are doing, since Iraq lost its army and police force and had to built up again so who had to fill in the job? :rolleyes:
    So they are already departing from the only job you claim soldiers ought to do. Make your mind up.

    Yes the families of the 52 dead london commuters really blame Iraq for it. That really is sick, using the death of those innocent people to make a comeback ina debate. Talk to them all did we? Have their permissiont to say that on there behalf do you?
    I saw enough interviews on TV and newspapers, yes.

    And of course there also the video testimony of the bombers themselves :rolleyes:

    What do you think they did it then? :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    But then again when the deceased decided to join the army they did so on the premise that they would serve this country and put their lives on the line to defend and protect Britain.

    Nobody told them that part of the job might also entitle being shipped to nations thousands of miles away to fight pointless and illegal wars for the sole reason that our Prime Minister is sexually attracted to the US President (or whatever it is that makes Blair such willing slave of the Americans).

    Perhaps they should update their contract and conditions to reflect this, so would-be soldiers know exactly what they will be giving their lives for.

    To be fair no-one told my uncle he'd be patrolling the backstreets of a British city, or me that I'd be standing outside a small hamlet in Bosnia trying to hold back a mob intent on murder, or my great uncle that he'd be splashing away from a French beach trying to find find his men a boat to get them back to Britain.

    In the end as professionals we went where we were told to go, did the job and sometimes came home and sometimes ended in that foreign field. Soldiers are servants of the democratic government - if the government decides to send them somewhere, for whatever reason, off the army troop.

    If you can't take a joke you shouldn't have joined.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    To be fair no-one told my uncle he'd be patrolling the backstreets of a British city, or me that I'd be standing outside a small hamlet in Bosnia trying to hold back a mob intent on murder, or my great uncle that he'd be splashing away from a French beach trying to find find his men a boat to get them back to Britain.

    In the end as professionals we went where we were told to go, did the job and sometimes came home and sometimes ended in that foreign field. Soldiers are servants of the democratic government - if the government decides to send them somewhere, for whatever reason, off the army troop.

    If you can't take a joke you shouldn't have joined.


    At last!!!!

    Someone that speaks sense!!!

    Sir, I shake your hand and salute you.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yup. The army kill who they are pointed at.

    Theres a lot of talk about honour and protection but it's yet more bullshit to hide what's going on.

    Murderers without conscience and quite evil the lot of them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Yup. The army kill who they are pointed at.

    Theres a lot of talk about honour and protection but it's yet more bullshit to hide what's going on.

    Murderers without conscience and quite evil the lot of them.


    A bit harsh calling them murderes and evil but yes it is essentially true.

    They are legally sanctioned killers. Its their job.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    To be fair no-one told my uncle he'd be patrolling the backstreets of a British city, or me that I'd be standing outside a small hamlet in Bosnia trying to hold back a mob intent on murder, or my great uncle that he'd be splashing away from a French beach trying to find find his men a boat to get them back to Britain.
    With the possible exception of NI, there was justification and good reason to be in the other situations you have mentioned.

    There is however no justification, reason or standing, moral, legal or otherwise, for the British government to have attacked, invaded and occupied the sovereign nation of Iraq in the way it did.

    I have all the sympathy in the world for the army doctor who who refused to go to Iraq and is now being court martialled for it. If only others had summed up his courage...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You really are blinded aren't you?

    Yes, lets see the british govenour lording it over a Iraq with our permant bases and set up for rule going.

    oh right there isn't one.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Walkindude wrote:

    Yes, lets see the british govenor lording it over a Iraq with our permant babses and set up for rule going.

    oh right there isn't one.
    Eh? :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    thats what attacking, invading and occupying means, in the sense you are talking.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    With the possible exception of NI, there was justification and good reason to be in the other situations you have mentioned.

    There is however no justification, reason or standing, moral, legal or otherwise, for the British government to have attacked, invaded and occupied the sovereign nation of Iraq in the way it did.

    I have all the sympathy in the world for the army doctor who who refused to go to Iraq and is now being court martialled for it. If only others had summed up his courage...

    Good reason or no (and we disagree on this) we're part of a democratic country. If a soldier decides he's not going to follow his lawful orders* he's actually standing against democracy. And in the end democracies rely on the fact that soldiers obey whether they personally agree with it or not... otherwise you don't have a democracy, but a military dictatorship.


    Now I'm not saying there's no time when you shouldn't refuse to obey, for example if the a democratically elected Government decided to order the army to round up and kill all Moslems.

    But you need to be damn sure of your ground and be certain that your actions (which may be followed by the rest of the army) are to prevent a greater evil than wrecking democracy.

    PS The Doctor's RAF rather than army - explains it all really... :thumb:

    * to be a lawful order its irrelevant whether the war is legal or not. Virtually all 'Just War' is aimed at the political and very senior military leadership. It recongises that soldiers do not have the full background and legal experience to make that decision. All as a soldier you are responsible for is 'justice in war' eg you can't go around topping prisoners or burning down villages for fun.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I quite like the amount of justification you have to do to get people to kill each other.

    NQA posts utter gibberish about "legal", "democracy" and so on but the real message is that it's fairly difficult to get normal people to do bad things and you have to do a good job of persuasion first.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But at least its the truth and not these misconceived notions that the army and miliatry aren't there to kill people ever.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nobody has said that the army is never to kill anyone.

    But it isn't (or at least it certainly shouldn't be) the army's role to further the geopolitical interests of corrupt, oil-obsessed fucks.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Its job is to do what it is told. Simple as.

    yeah, well I'd take the oil crupt fucks over saddam or any dicatorial regime anyday.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    But it isn't (or at least it certainly shouldn't be) the army's role to further the geopolitical interests of corrupt, oil-obsessed fucks.

    Exactly.

    The army should be there to protect those who are weak and defenceless, through the UN's human rights programme.

    It should not be there to further the economic interests of an undemocratic and corrupt cabal.

    Interesting how some people attack Saddam Hussein for killing some Iraqis for geopolitical reasons, but then adore Blair and Bush for blowing the fuck out of 30,000+ Iraqis for, erm, geopolitical reasons.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The UN is not the army tho.

    The UN uses a peace keeping force that are there to protect the inocent, weak and defenceless.

    Although if you look back, they haven't done a good job.

    But a nations military has no such direct obligations. There primary directive is t take orders and act as a lethal offence and efence of their nation.

    Saddam was evry differnt to bush and blair and making that statement above is way to simplistic of the situation.
Sign In or Register to comment.