Viewing Thread:
"forces are scum"

I was incensed by a remark made from a staffy at sr today. Reflecting on the whole of the british forces. It really amazes me when some small minded individual thinks that the whole role of the military is to be paid to kill folk. We do not all run forward with guns and we're certainly not mercenaries. In fact I repair radars, radars which keep our coasts safe and radars which are used to save people last time i run forward with a rifle was in 96 im sure.

Sorry for the rant people but lets hear it for the doctors, medics, coastguards, famine relief, public disaster crews, builders, electricians, civil engineers, and bomb disposal crews. our grandads and their dads and their dads before them. Lets hear it for freedom, democracy and all the people who go where no man would ever wish to go.

QUOTED TODAY



loki
"everything flows"
Staff Regular stats
Today at 9.48AM AUXRADAR wrote:
> yep. we do have time off sometimes from putting our lives at risk its
> true.

I love the way that people in the forces keep pointing out that they're 'putting their lives at risk'. What do you want, another dumb little medal? Like we owe them any favours for the job they chose to do.

You know what, people who are prepared to kill people for money do not rate very highly in my opinion.

end quote

Warrenpoint is an alright town now, they tidied the place up. The beach is still rubbish though.
Remember the bomb blast and ambush at the castle on the outskirts which killed the soldiers and fishermen? My Dad drove past the truck an hour before it blew up, it was a trailer with bales on it to disguise the explosives. They have a memorial up there now, but some scum vandalised it recently. It's fixed though.

i know the book but never got round to reading it. There was pictures of the car that housed the mortars in warren point in it. Thats the only place i was ever spat on and it was from a 70 yr old woman.

There are no 'good' wars.

Except the Falklands war, the Star Wars trilogy, Lord of the Rings and one rainy afternoon I spent on Red Alert 2 crushing those evil Soviets.

Yeah, more or less. You read the book "Bandit Country"?

you mean bessbrook mill. we got there just after lee restorick got shot. it was fun all round...not!! always amazes me how nobody heard a 50 calibre sniper rifle being fired.

- "War is not about who's right, its about who's left."


- "The purpose of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bas**rd die for his."

AUXRADAR wrote:
>Ive been involved in policing the streets of northern ireland.


You ever been to South Armagh?
Dumb question I suppose, the Sniper was years ago.

Anyway, where were you?

AUXRADAR wrote:
> lol some people just are not worth the effort. not carrying on a
> discussion with a child minded ignoramous. rant away dear friend the
> world has dubbed its ears.


I'm not ranting to the world, I'm simply insulting you. There's a difference y'know.

The reason I hadn't entered into any sensible discussion is that, frankly, you seemed incapable of it. You seem to think that someone whose opinions differ from your own are naive or ill-educated. That's pretty foolish.

So, why didn't I respond to your reply with more than a dismissive insult? Becuase your arguments didn't seem worth the effort. They seem largely to have been cases of you setting up straw men to demolish with your pompous bluster, or neatly side-stepping relevant points.

In this thread you say that my remark relected on the whole of the British forces (and that 'forces are scum'?). Firstly, why just British? ;) At no point did I say that the whole role of the military is to kill people. But it is a function of the military, and the one with the most serious ethical repercussions - and everyone has to fit that within their own moral framework. And it's something that doesn't fit comfortably with my own. That's your cherished freedom in action I'm afraid. Or maybe even you're uncomfortable with some of the realities of the military? You want to point out that you are not the one running forward with the gun. Why? Do you think that makes you (as part of the organisation that supports them) less culpable than those on the front line?

I certainly don't think that all the forces are scum, and have a profound respect for the actions of many who have served. But that does not change the fact that it is a paid career, and in the course of that career you may be some part of the killing of another human being - because you accept the orders of the nation's political masters - rather than becuase you have used your own moral judgement. There are shelves of books musing on the thorny issues of individual and collective responsibilty in the armed forces. To say that an assessment that soldiers are prepared to kill for money is 'naive' is simply closing your eyes to a genuine debate. And my take on the debate doesn't entitle you to any automatic respect for your choice of paid employment.

Also, in the original reply to the original post, you rant on about very different issues. For a start, the stuff about sandbags and fire crews is largely irrelevant. Yes, the services do perform those tasks, but so could people be trained from other fields. It is simply as case that it is a sensible use of resources when men are not involved in conflict. No-one joined the army to pile up sandbags, it's not the primary function of the military so let's leave that aside for now.

You also seem to think that I advocate maintaining no military forces. That's rubbish. I accept the need for them and those who serve in them as a necessary evil (and don't kid yourself, it's no more than that). So your comments about the Falklands and the World Wars have no place in your criticism. I accpet the need for the military, but that doesn't require that I have to automatically admire the people that sign up to it (which is not to say I do not admire individuals who do serve - it is the person and their inndividual actions that earns respect, not their occupation).

And 'not remember the fallen and dead of the 2 bloody world wars'? How dare you extrapolate that from my post? That's silly, and also not relevant as most who served in those wars were conscripts or volunteers anyway (including my grandparents). There is a difference between signning up for an individual conflict that you deem to be Just, and signing up for a career that allows you to be used in conflicts which are not 'just'; and (in so-doing) that subverts your own moral autonomy.

That does not mean I think those in the forces are scum (although you may well be). Just that their sense of morality differs from mine, or that they had not considered fully the potential implications of their choices.

And by the way, as you branded me 'ill-informed and possibly ill-educated', I would like to point out the fact that to assume that someone who reaches a differing conclusion from you has no clue what they're talking about is pretty dammn arrogant and close-minded too. Not that it should be important but I studied International Law, the philosophy of The Ethics of War and the history the 'Just War' tradition at Warwick Uni (for which I got a 1st). Now, I'm not claiming this makes me any kind of expert. I'm not. But I have read a great deal on the issue of the armed forces and have given it years of thought (in-between getting drunk at the Union, admittedly). So I am comfortable that my beliefs have a well reasoned basis. So, even if I did choose to flippantly insult you, be opinionated and brief (as I took an instant dislike to you) on the forums, that doesn't invalidate my viewpoint as 'ill-informed'.

And no, having doubts about the ethics of the military does not mean that I hate freedom or 'democracy', so you can stop the flag-waving approach to silencing dissenting opinions. This is not the USA y'know.

So, in conclusion - no, I do not consider myself 'told off'. I still consider my opinions to be valid. And I still consider you to be patronising and arrogant.

Oh and Cyclone, thanks for the quote:

'Patriots always talk of dying for their country, never of killing for it'

Hadn't heard it before, but it rings very true.

Loki - 'User Warned'

:p

No it hasn't - a mature discussion can be very productive - reducing yourself to name calling doesn't make your point any more valid than the other persons.

You both have good points anyway, even though you choose to put them across in such a patronising manner.