# Honoring the Fallen? Exactly who are you respecting?



## MA-Caver (Jul 5, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> I bow my head in memory and respect for those that fall in service of their country.


Respectfully I ask... does this include the enemy? -- That was my first thought reading those words and hopefully my tone is received as it was given with the intent to create a peaceful and thoughtful discussion. 

We honor and mourn the loss of our own (country's) dead that died in wartime service yet the "enemy" whomever they may be at the time also died in service for their country. 
The motion picture "We Were Soldiers" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0277434/ brings up this point. In fact I think I posted it somewhere before... *brb*.... grr.. can't find it but basically Gibson's character was speaking to General Westmoreland about the prospect of sending more troops into Vietnam after the first major battle the Americans had faced against the NVA. 
He mentioned about finding a letter on a dead NVA soldier and pointed out that the man also died for his country. 

So now in Afganistan and in Iraq and probably soon in other places (we all know where) soldiers from both sides of the pond are fighting and dying in one of the most inhospitiable places on earth. Yet they are fighting an enemy who is dying for what they believe in. But we do not honor them because it is not what WE believe in. 

Is it me or is it the way of things and that way is sad??


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 5, 2009)

I may be able to "respect' my enemy, but that wouldn't change the necessity of killing him when it becomes necessary.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 5, 2009)

There are some I don't respect nor honor (SS camp guards for example),  but most of them I do.


----------



## stone_dragone (Jul 5, 2009)

There is an intersting dynamic here that this discussion raises.  In pre-modern warfare (before firearms) and first, second and third generation warfare (post-firearms), a war was generally fought between soldiers employed by opposing nations.  Sometimes they spoke the same language, other times they didn't.  Sometimes the combatants looked the same, sometimes they were vastly different. When swords clashed and rifles fired, there had to be a certain dehumanizing of the opposing force in order to effeciently kill them.  

Although the person on the other side was trying to kill you, there was often a respect there knowing that the he was a member of the same fraternity as you.  Someone who follows orders to win for their side.  In many of the great leaders (Generals on down to Squad leaders) eyes, a brave soldier is a brave soldier, no matter what the uniform.

In fourth generation modern warfare, insurgency is the flavor.  It isn't a paid soldier who is fighting an open war.  It is a shopkeeper who is more afraid of the home team than the visiting team.  It is the mentally challenged woman who doesn't know she has a bomb strapped to her back walking though the marketplace.  Those people are victims, not combatants.  The combatants are the planners and the thinkers behind mosque bombings and the like.

This new generation warfare doesn't so much break the rules as writes new ones.  Those new rules make it very difficult for someone from previous generations to honor the enemy.  As one of those folks, let the bastards die, burried alive in unmarked tombs filled with pigs blood.  I'll save my tears for my brothers and those who fought honorably, no matter what their flag.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 5, 2009)

I gotta quote Patton here:


> No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 5, 2009)

Yesterday's enemies may be tomorrows allies and vice versa.

Enemies are only "enemies" in relative terms where military matters are concerned.

It used to be that back in the Napoleonic era, soldiers simply viewed each other as fellow professionals doing their jobs. It was rare, but not unheard of , for them to get along fine off-duty or off the battlefield.

I think that gradually, after the trend over the last 2 centuries of progressively dehumanizing the enemy for propaganda purposes that we are coming back to that way of thinking.

Well, at least as professional or national armies are concerned. These "noncombatant combatants" stone dragone mentions.....I do not expect we will see any break for them.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 6, 2009)

"The true warrior often understands his enemy better than he understands his friends. A dangerous pitfall if you let understanding lead to sympathy as it will naturally do when left unguided."

-Frank Herbert


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 6, 2009)

Big Don said:


> I gotta quote Patton here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah I knew that would come up sooner than later... but while I understand that... it still not my point. 
Like Bob I also have an aversion to honoring and respecting any of the Wehrmacht or SS soldiers who policed the concentration camps. The SS get most of the blame because they had the more sinister reputation. But a concentration camp guard (to me) isn't a combatant... they're just a prison guard. 
Yet you take the Luftwaffe pilots and the armored division and the infantry soldiers who fought and died defending the German borders as the allies closed in on Berlin in defense of the city and country (yes of the fuhrer as well but in their minds they were defending Germany... their homeland). They were soldiers conscripts etc. fighting and dying for their country, just as bravely as the Allied soldiers. 
Insurgents yes are rewriting the rules by using innocent civilians but remember they were not the first to do so... and will not be the last. Remember the vietcong who used children holding live grenades and walking up to American soldiers only to let go at the last moment... and so forth. Yet why were/are they doing that. To fight off a superior force by any means necessary. 

Again I'm not going to try to honor or give hero status to the (present) enemy. They are a threat to our country because of the hidden cells in this (and across the pond) waiting to be activated. They are none-the-less trying to repel invaders... fighting and dying for their country. 

Should we honor only our own and let theirs honor their own?


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 6, 2009)

Their country or their religion?

People fight and kill for MANY different reasons.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jul 6, 2009)

We should honour our own countries dead. If our allies are present, honour then as well. At no time should you being honouring the enemy killed that is up to their own country to do. I think it almost demeans the sacrifice of our men and women to honour those that tried to kill them. 

In western Canada a few years back during Remembrance Day ceremonies some ex-German soldiers showed up in uniform with the intent of laying a wreath at the cenotaph. It was almost a riot between 80 year old men. Even after 50 years the emotions still ran high.

Ive been to Remembrance Day ceremonies where the Union Jack and the American flag are flown, in fact I cant think of one Ive been to where it hasnt happened. Why? Because you honour your own and you honour your friends.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 6, 2009)

The dead are no one's enemy.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 6, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The dead are no one's enemy.


 
They are when they are used as martyrs for the cause and used as an example to induce others to follow their lead.


----------



## girlbug2 (Jul 6, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> They are when they are used as martyrs for the cause and used as an example to induce others to follow their lead.


 
A good point Tez, martyrs are not exactly the same kind of enemy, historically, as soldiers. It would be foolish to honor the enemy's martyrs.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 6, 2009)

In a lot of cases I can have respect for those who fought for their country on either side. As noted, there are exceptions--though for many regular soldiers of the German military, it was patriotism that motivated them and I can respect that.

To only respect my side amounts to believing that only my side could ever be right. Certainly I respect the Native Americans who fell in the various Indian Wars against "my" side.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 6, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> They are when they are used as martyrs for the cause and used as an example to induce others to follow their lead.



True.  Let me put it another way.

The dead are incapable of being honored or respected - or dishonored or disrespected.  They are no longer capable of anything.  They're dead.  You can pray over their graves or urinate on them, it doesn't matter.

The dead are gone.  What we the living do and say about them affects them not at all.

Ultimately, how we choose to honor the dead is not about the dead.  It's about the living.


----------



## geezer (Jul 6, 2009)

stone_dragone said:


> As one of those folks, let the bastards die, burried alive in unmarked tombs *filled with pigs blood*.



I get that you are fed up with cowards who plot bombings and beheadings of innocents, while hiding behind others and taking no risk themselves. But is it really helpful to make such an obvious and inflamatory reference to the religion shared by both our enemies and those we are trying to help, not to mention that it is the religion of many of our own soldiers and citizens as well?


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 6, 2009)

geezer said:


> I get that you are fed up with cowards who plot bombings and beheadings of innocents, while hiding behind others and taking no risk themselves. But is it really helpful to make such an obvious and inflamatory reference to the religion shared by both our enemies and those we are trying to help, not to mention that it is the religion of many of our own soldiers and citizens as well?


 
I think he probably has very good reason to feel the way he does, I have to say it's a view shared by many soldiers I know. May not make it right but losing mates will do that to you.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 6, 2009)

*SD* made some good points in his post and whilst the strong phrasing could be interpreted as anti-religious in isolation, I think, in context, what he meant to show was the depth and strength of his feelings about those that orchestrate 'warfare' in the way described.

Personally, I think locking them in a room with the mothers of those of their own people they've slain whilst using them as 'tools' would work well as a punishment.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 6, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> *SD* made some good points in his post and whilst the strong phrasing could be interpreted as anti-religious in isolation, I think, in context, what he meant to show was the depth and strength of his feelings about those that orchestrate 'warfare' in the way described.
> 
> Personally, I think locking them in a room with the mothers of those of their own people they've slain whilst using them as 'tools' would work well as a punishment.


Well that may be but I was hoping that the thread would examine the concept of how while two countries are at war each has their honored dead who gave their all for their country. Yet each country has only honored those who died for THEIR own country and the ones killed by said country can just rot in a unmarked grave... it's the same in reverse that they would honor their own and hope that "ours" would rot in unmarked graves. 
Where is the mutual respect that war sometimes brings? Understanding that each are fighting and dying for what they believe in. Or does war bring mutual respect. Essentially hatred is what brings us to kill our fellow man. Yet does the hate have to survive from one generation to the next? 
Towards the end of WWII both the Germans and Japanese troops fought and died defending their respective homelands. True they were the instigators of the war and many had committed atrocities but thousands of others were merely soldiers just like the ones that killed them. 
Fast forward to today there is a new enemy and while their war-time tactics are radically different they are still fighting and dying for their countries. They don't want collation troops in their country just the same way that we didn't want the Japanese to hop from Hawaii over to the U.S. mainland, (eventually Germany would've worked their way across the Atlantic to the States after taking over Britain and established bases there... had things gone differently, it probably would've ended up that way)... 
Either way both countries lost fathers, sons and brothers who are honored by their own. 
War is no less costly or terrible to either side.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 6, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> Well that may be but I was hoping that the thread would examine the concept of how while two countries are at war each has their honored dead who gave their all for their country. Yet each country has only honored those who died for THEIR own country and the ones killed by said country can just rot in a unmarked grave... it's the same in reverse that they would honor their own and hope that "ours" would rot in unmarked graves.
> Where is the mutual respect that war sometimes brings? Understanding that each are fighting and dying for what they believe in. Or does war bring mutual respect. Essentially hatred is what brings us to kill our fellow man. Yet does the hate have to survive from one generation to the next?
> Towards the end of WWII both the Germans and Japanese troops fought and died defending their respective homelands. True they were the instigators of the war and many had committed atrocities but thousands of others were merely soldiers just like the ones that killed them.
> Fast forward to today there is a new enemy and while their war-time tactics are radically different they are still fighting and dying for their countries. They don't want collation troops in their country just the same way that we didn't want the Japanese to hop from Hawaii over to the U.S. mainland, (eventually Germany would've worked their way across the Atlantic to the States after taking over Britain and established bases there... had things gone differently, it probably would've ended up that way)...
> ...



Gettysburg.  The well-known battleground of the US Civil War (or War Between the States if you prefer, or War of Norther Aggression - whatever).

The dead are buried there with honor.  I would have thought that the cemetery contained both the bodies of Union and Confederate troops, until I visited.

It turns out that the Union soldiers were buried with dignity, the Confederates were left on the battlefield where they lay, until after several days, they were shoveled in to slit trenches, unidentified, trenches dug wherever they fell.

It was not until decades later that the Confederate dead were disinterred and their remains sent 'home' to southern states.  How they identified which states to send which remains to, I do not know.

If we had no respect for the fallen dead of our own nation as it was in rebellion, I can hardly expect us to have any respect for those of other lands in other wars.

Sad though it may be.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 6, 2009)

stone_dragone said:


> There is an intersting dynamic here that this discussion raises. In pre-modern warfare (before firearms) and first, second and third generation warfare (post-firearms), a war was generally fought between soldiers employed by opposing nations. Sometimes they spoke the same language, other times they didn't. Sometimes the combatants looked the same, sometimes they were vastly different. When swords clashed and rifles fired, there had to be a certain dehumanizing of the opposing force in order to effeciently kill them.
> 
> Although the person on the other side was trying to kill you, there was often a respect there knowing that the he was a member of the same fraternity as you. Someone who follows orders to win for their side. In many of the great leaders (Generals on down to Squad leaders) eyes, a brave soldier is a brave soldier, no matter what the uniform.
> 
> ...


 
Good post Stoney. 

Hmmm...pig blood? If used properly could actually go a long way to ending the war actually! Just ask General "Black Jack" Pershing. 

I guess it may have started with 'Nam perhaps, but people in general these days have a pretty strange view of what "war" really is. There's a reason General Grant said, "War is hell." He wasn't kidding! People die, soldiers and civilians alike. This concept of only military targets (including personel) being destroyed is ridicuous, idealistic yes, but still ridiculous. 

War should not be made comfortable. Perhaps that's why we as a people don't do much to avoid it? Not only is it out of sight-out of mind, but it's been made "comfortable" for too many.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 6, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Good post Stoney.
> 
> Hmmm...pig blood? If used properly could actually go a long way to ending the war actually! Just ask General "Black Jack" Pershing.



http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.asp


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 6, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.asp


 
Status: Undetermined

Not only did you miss my sarcasm, you missed my point.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 6, 2009)

All this "warm and cuddly" talk about honoring the enemy is easy for armchair soldiers......


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 6, 2009)

As far as honouring the fallen goes, *Caver*, I suspect that it has an awful lot to do with how the war is fought, or at least an individuals experience or perception of it. 

For example, both my grandfathers didn't have a great deal of ill will to the German's they fought during the Second World War, except towards the various SS/Hitler Youth units they encountered. They had a lot of respect for the ordinary German counterpart they engaged, considering him well disciplined and tough as anything in the face of adversity.

The current conflicts are marked by the fact that the 'enemy' is not a country fighting for what it believes in or for defence, as such, but an amorphous, faceless, sneaking 'assassin', who fights cloaked in dishonour. 

Now, as an individual, I don't see how they have any other choice, as any conventional engagement would see them eradicated in short order. But, given the chivalric myths with which we grew up, however fallacious they may be, it makes it hard to honour such an enemy.

The passage of time will ease that, I am hopeful. The Vietnamese, for example, are, now that enough time has passed, respected for the utterly dedicated and implacable foe that they were - this being despite the fact that, of necessity, they fought 'unconventionally'.

The supposedly Islamic forces ranged against Nato in Afghanistan are no less the poor misguided pawns of their commanders than our troops are of our governments but it is sad that they are being spent so pointlessly. They may believe what they are told they are 'fighting for' or they may be pressed into service - either way they end up dead for an unobtainable goal and their loved ones suffer for it.

Sympathy in the abstract is one thing, however, facing up to the fact that these people (whether fanatics or victims) are seeking to kill troops sent by our governments into harms way and are doing so in ways that we do not recognise as 'honourable'.

For now, I do not 'honour' the fallen of the Taliban, tho' I do feel sorrow at their passing, as I do for any needlessly spent human life; I also pity those that are forced into this path who do not wish it. The fight is still on-going with no end in sight - that means the wounds are still going to be raw and repeated. So, whilst we should honour the passing of other humans with due dignity, the time is not yet here where forgiveness can leaven that with the nobility of respect (not of the sort I would wish for myself to hold for an enemy at any rate).


----------



## seasoned (Jul 6, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> All this "warm and cuddly" talk about honoring the enemy is easy for *armchair soldiers*......


Thank you, your above, is a very good point.  I don't just know someone over there fighting, my only son is there. Sitting here and worrying about anybody except him and his follow solders is just not in my vocabulary at this time.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 6, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> All this "warm and cuddly" talk about honoring the enemy is easy for armchair soldiers......


I'm not talking about being warm and fuzzy and cuddly and I for damn sure don't consider myself an armchair soldier even though I've never been in "military combat" situations (urban yes but not against trained killers such as soldiers are). I'd appreciate not being thought of as such. :asian: 
The enemy is the enemy is the enemy and you have to kill the enemy more than they kill you so to win the war/conflict. Japan showed that, Germany showed that (TWICE) and so forth. 
Yet there is something to be said for DYING for your country no matter whose side you're on. That needs IMO to be respected and honored. The ultimate sacrifice, to which I myself am willing to do should we wake up one morning and find armed combatants within our borders.  The same thing that our present and future enemies feel when our Presidents sent our troops overseas.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 6, 2009)

Demonizing the enemy via propaganda is a sensible tactic for a govt. to use on its young and impressionable army members. That doesn't mean it's other than that--a tactic. Surely far from an actual battle we can do better? Does only one side merit respect in the 30 Years' War?


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 7, 2009)

To talk of mutual respect in the current war situation in Afghanistan is to sound like some old buffer in an Englishmans club in the last century I'm afraid. The British troops out there and I very much expect that the American troops are the same, are professional soldiers doing a brilliant job under impossibale conditions. Respect isn't given to cowards who put down roadside bombs then use intimidation to make the local villagers to dick the troops. Respect isn't given to people who throw acid over young girls to stop them going to school, respect isn't given to killers of women and children. This isn't propaganda, it's fact.
The troops out in Afghanistan do their job professionally, with courage and humour. They often risk much to help the locals and attempt to make life better for them, although they don't have to and often it's not appreciated.
To talk of dying for your country makes nice patriotic speeches, defending your country as Churchill says 'on the beaches' etc but the reality is that the troops are dying a long way from home. War isn't a noble thing, something to say as at Agincourt, 'I was there', its sheer bloody hell, don't make it sound as if it was a great adventure. 
Respect for the enemy here? No. Sadness for the enemy? No.

When you talk about the German soldiers etc bear in mind that they weren't just innocent troops fighting and dying for their country, the German people voted Hitler into power in the thirties, that the concentration camps weren't just a wartime thing, that anti Semitism, beatings, the killing of handicapped children etc stared before war was declared so I have no respect for them either.

Seasoned, I understand.


----------



## seasoned (Jul 7, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> As far as honouring the fallen goes, Caver, I suspect that it has an awful lot to do with *how the war is fought*, or at least an individuals experience or perception of it.
> 
> For example, both my grandfathers didn't have a great deal of ill will to the German's they fought during the Second World War, except towards the various SS/Hitler Youth units they encountered. They had a lot of respect for the ordinary German counterpart they engaged, considering him well disciplined and tough as anything in the face of adversity.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 7, 2009)

It's very dangerous to have pre conceived idea about Afghanistan, that it's a country of down trodden peasants being forced by the Taliban to fight against the Allies. The Taliban are the peasants, there's far more sympathy for them than you may imagine. The Afghans don't want us there and a lot of them were happier under the Taliban than they are under what they see as the foreign invaders. some are intimidated into helping but basically their sympathy lies with the Taliban anyway.
Where the Taliban has been moved on, you would imagine life would be different from how it was under them, it's not, it's exactly the same, thats because they don't want change, they want the women not to go to school or have jobs, they want things kept in a strict Muslim way.
We are deluding ourselves if we think these people actually want us there and want our help, they'll take the medical help, the power stations etc but they want us gone and if they can help make that happen by killing our troops they will do it, make no mistake. Every Afghan is hostile even if you think they are being friendly.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 7, 2009)

Am I the only one who's noticed that the way the Afghani people are being described here is a lot like the way the British would've described their opponents in the American colonies during the Revolutionary War? Not standing up in uniform and fighting, using ambushes, not even acting on behalf of an actual country, armtwisting the locals to help them, etc.? Aren't these the very same 'dishonourable' tactics the British accused the rebel forces of using?


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 7, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> All this "warm and cuddly" talk about honoring the enemy is easy for armchair soldiers......


 
No doubt! It's real easy when you ain't got bullets whizzin' by yer head and sand blasting yer face from incomin'. 

I feel that this topic is a little deeper than what's been presented. There's not a right or wrong answer; no black & white here. 

Some of my thoughts at the moment: 

Some choose to fight, some are forced to fight. 

Those that choose to fight I can respect if they are fighting for something they truely believe in to the extent that they follow some sort of honorable path. In other words, it's expected that the enemy would try to take strategic targets; however, to rape and pillage afterwards is not an honorable thing to do. Civillians suffer and are killed in war, but when it can be avoided it should be out of basic respect for a fellow human being. 

Those that are forced to fight I pity and have no respect for those that force them.


----------



## seasoned (Jul 7, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Am I the only one who's noticed that the way the Afghani people are being described here is a lot like the way the British would've described their opponents in the American colonies during the Revolutionary War? Not standing up in uniform and fighting, using ambushes, not even acting on behalf of an actual country, armtwisting the locals to help them, etc.? Aren't these the very same 'dishonourable' tactics the British accused the rebel forces of using?


With all due respect, arnisador, that was then, and this is now. The face of war has changed a lot from then till now. We are showing the enemy a lot more respect then we get in return. The fact of the matter at hand is, "our" arms are being twisted. In a lot of cases we fight the same people at night that we help during the day. This is because we can't tell them apart. If we are going to respect the enemy at war time, then let us respect the criminal element among us, as people that are down trodden and just trying to get by, by feeding off of society. Let us keep in mind that this thread could be read by people that are in or about to be in harms way. That my friend, is where our honor should be directed.:asian:


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 7, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> I feel that this topic is a little deeper than what's been presented. There's not a right or wrong answer; no black & white here.
> 
> Some of my thoughts at the moment:
> 
> Some choose to fight, some are forced to fight.


Thank you for seeing that there is more to it than just how bad the enemy is and how we should dis on them. 

Also thanks Arni for that post as well.

There is no right or wrong in war. It brings out the best and brings out the worse in people. 

I never said that ALL the (fighting) dead in a particular war should be honored. There are bad guys on BOTH sides, one may have more than the other but War/combat conditions are a great place to do all the things you ever wanted to do to someone without getting caught or in trouble. 

As for the Afghanistani people... their plight is bad and they probably want everyone to just kiss off and leave them alone. We are the aggressors who go into their country and try to impose OUR beliefs onto their lives when we broke down their door in search of terrorists who killed American and British civilians. As I see it what they've been doing is their version of the French resistance to the occupying German army during WWII. We would do no less if there were an invading country on our lands.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 7, 2009)

seasoned said:


> With all due respect, arnisador, that was then, and this is now. The face of war has changed a lot from then till now. We are showing the enemy a lot more respect then we get in return. The fact of the matter at hand is, "our" arms are being twisted. In a lot of cases we fight the same people at night that we help during the day. This is because we can't tell them apart. If we are going to respect the enemy at war time, then let us respect the criminal element among us, as people that are down trodden and just trying to get by, by feeding off of society. Let us keep in mind that this thread could be read by people that are in or about to be in harms way. That my friend, is where our honor should be directed.:asian:


 
Yeah...it would be a lot easier if all our "enemies" wore red and marched in straight lines while we wore what we wanted and moved around freely from behind rocks and trees taking pot shots at them wouldn't it? 

Wait a minute...:uhohh:


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 7, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Am I the only one who's noticed that the way the Afghani people are being described here is a lot like the way the British would've described their opponents in the American colonies during the Revolutionary War? Not standing up in uniform and fighting, using ambushes, not even acting on behalf of an actual country, armtwisting the locals to help them, etc.? Aren't these the very same 'dishonourable' tactics the British accused the rebel forces of using?


 

Oh of course you've been there haven't you? 
I'm not saying they are using 'dishonourable' tactics, I'm saying we've damn well invaded their country and they don't want us there, simple as that. I've said nothing about uniforms, nor anything about not acting on behalf of their country quite the oposite of course but hey if you want to be anti British about all this bring it on. 
It has nothng to do with respect it's to do with going over there doing your job and making it back alive and unmaimed.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 7, 2009)

seasoned said:


> Let us keep in mind that this thread could be read by people that are in or about to be in harms way. That my friend, is where our honor should be directed.



This thread could cause us to lose the war? Am I guilty of not supporting the troops?!? More jingoism.

It's all good and well to "rally 'round the flag" during war but this is a more general question. There's a time and a place for philosophy. If you're in Afghanistan, you have more pragmatic concerns. If you're sitting at home or in an office typing on the Internet, it's OK to engage ideas rather than mere rhetoric.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 7, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> anti British



You've got this set to trigger at too low a level. My point was that Americans used similar tactics when it suited them. Then it was patriotic, and we still teach it proudly in schools as an innovative and brave action, but when the tables are turned on us in the U.S. it's apparently dishonourable. That's an illogical and indefensible position, in general. (Whether what's happening in Afghanistan is sufficiently different to make this a poor analogy is another matter.) Tactics are tactics, and classifying some as "honourable" and others as "only used by subhuman savages" could only cloud the minds of actual tacticians trying to find ways to handle the situation. We have to see things as they are. Small people go into Judo for self-defense rather than a striking art for a reason: It suits their situation.

The big issue, of course, remains the crushing poverty, poor infrastructure, and low levels of education in Afghanistan. That's what's making this battle so hard, by allowing the Taliban to continue to thrive. That...and the Taliban's willingness to use tactics (including threats against their "own" people) that we would find unacceptable outside of Guantanmo Bay.

But wailing about how unfair it is that a smaller, less well-organized, less well-equipped force is doing so well against us is like when the biggest kids in school say that "only girls kick (to the crotch)": They know their weakness and are trying to outlaw it by words to help them continue to win. It's a sensible tactic, but getting too wrapped up in an ill-defined and highly culture- and time-bound sense of "honour" muddles the issue.

The Taliban aren't going to start wearing brightly coloured uniforms and marching in formation because we think they way they've been fighting isn't very cricket. Nor should we go back to torturing people because they won't play by our rules when we invade "their" country.


----------



## seasoned (Jul 7, 2009)

seasoned said:


> Let us keep in mind that this thread could be read by people that are in or about to be in harms way. That my friend, is where our honor should be directed.:asian:


 


arnisador said:


> This thread could cause us to lose the war? Am I guilty of not supporting the troops?!? More jingoism.


 
Here, let me finish my sentence so you don't misread It again. *Let us keep in mind that this thread could be read by people that are in or about to be in harms way. That my friend, is where our honor should be directed,* "and not toward the enemy, they are facing". I said nothing about this thread taking away from the war effort or questioning any body's patriotism. I am a little bit closer to this then most, and have a lot to lose. I though I made this clear up front. I'm not here to get into a pissing match about who said what, my son is there and I am with him in my mind every day, until he comes home. *Honoring the Fallen? Exactly who are you respecting? *This was the original question, and my answer is an unequivocal one. My son and his follow soldiers. Cut and dry.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 7, 2009)

Regarding Afghanistan, given the Taliban's treatment of women etc., I don't feel much for them--they're not exactly dying in a noble cause. But my lack of regard for them is based on their extreme zealotry in the cause of their interpretations of the laws of one of the Abrahamic religions, not based on how they're fighting--_that's_ the difference.

One lesson of the My Lai massacre is the danger of over-demonizing the enemy.

You obviously have a closer connection to the wars than most of us, but given the scale of these wars and the heavy use of reserve/guard personnel it's fair to say most of us have some sort of connection to it. It's personal for just about everyone at this point.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 7, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Regarding Afghanistan, given the Taliban's treatment of women etc., I don't feel much for them--they're not exactly dying in a noble cause. But my lack of regard for them is based on their extreme zealotry in the cause of their interpretations of the laws of one of the Abrahamic religions, not based on how they're fighting--_that's_ the difference.
> 
> One lesson of the My Lai massacre is the danger of over-demonizing the enemy.
> 
> You obviously have a closer connection to the wars than most of us, but given the scale of these wars and the heavy use of reserve/guard personnel it's fair to say most of us have some sort of connection to it. It's personal for just about everyone at this point.


 

Seasoned is right, it's a simple point, I'm with him, my respect is for my students, friends and colleagues out there,along with their fellow service people and allies.... This isn't sparring in the dojo or even fighting in the cage, it's real life and it's bloody. Nobody is shaking hands after the battle, no game of football on Christmas Eve across No Man's Land. No one is demonising the enemy or saying they fight dishounourably. this isn't the first time we've fought in Afghanistan and the tactics are the same as they were then just more modern weapons.
Here's what our lads are doing at the moment ( ours as in British and American plus other Nato countries) you must of seen in in the news, it's the biggest push there they've done. no ones wailing about how unfair it is to our troops at all.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...sAfghanAndBritishOperationDisruptsTaliban.htm


----------



## arnisador (Jul 8, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> no game of football on Christmas Eve across No Man's Land.



Yet, there's a reason that image is so evocative.

Regarding the Wounded Knee Massacre, then, my sympathies and respect should lie only with the 25 U.S. servicemen killed, not the 150 "enemy" they slew? It's that simple? Or does all this only apply to the current battles, not ones in the past?


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 8, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Yet, there's a reason that image is so evocative.
> 
> Regarding the Wounded Knee Massacre, then, my sympathies and respect should lie only with the 25 U.S. servicemen killed, not the 150 "enemy" they slew? It's that simple? Or does all this only apply to the current battles, not ones in the past?


 
Past battles are past and can be looked at objectively. The current war is too close and too raw to consider respect when the only consideration is leaving alive and unhurt. With current battles, it's not a case of respect or disrespect as such. Respect, if it's going to, will come with hindsight when old soldiers reminisce not now.
For example, we lost seven soldiers this weekend and the grief is awful. Each death of a service person diminishes us all.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 8, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Past battles are past and can be looked at objectively. The current war is too close and too raw to consider respect when the only consideration is leaving alive and unhurt. With current battles, it's not a case of respect or disrespect as such. Respect, if it's going to, will come with hindsight when old soldiers reminisce not now.



This position I can certainly accept. Everyone has a friend or relative in either Iraq or Afghanistan right now, it seems.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 8, 2009)

arnisador said:


> This position I can certainly accept. Everyone has a friend or relative in either Iraq or Afghanistan right now, it seems.


 
I live and work on the largest garrison in Europe, most of our students are soldiers and the children of soldiers. Some of my colleagues in the job I do are also out in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of my students was killed in Afghanistan earlier this year, I've also known several of the soldiers killed out there including a female medic.
 We have several regiments here who are going back out later this year. We also have the Infantry Training Centre here where all the recruits are trained, so most of those killed have been here. the local community is very tied in with the service population here. My work is very much dealing with soldiers and MOD civilians.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 9, 2009)

Most of the cadets I taught while I was at West Point are now about transitioning from Captain to Major, and so I have former students out there who are still in the thick of things. (I say this as though the concept of being in the rear and safe still made any sense at all.) I cringe as I read the "Names of the Dead" in the NY Times, waiting to come across one of my cadets.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 9, 2009)

This is a very complicated issue for me. I've spent a lot of my adult life sifting through the jingoist propaganda and obfuscation that is used to manipulate populations into serving interests of an entrenched oligarchy. There were several good examples brought up in this thread where one side spins information to "create" enemies and "reasons" to kill each other. 

Another good example, IMHO, is the way the phrases "support or troops" and "protecting our freedom" get used. When I look at modern wars conducted by an all volunteer force, I do not see them as engaged in conflict to protect our freedom and I certainly don't feel compelled to support because they bought a message that I essentially view as a lie. 

I realize this will come off as extremely unpopular given the amount of messages in which we are exposed every day that shape our society to fight and kill for the benefits of a few. However, all of this is stemming from a general abhorance of war and for the excuses for going to war and for the people that benefit by causing war. 

I will respectfully mourn for people who are forced to fight to protect their families and their lives. I will pity those who buy into the lies and are tricked into throwing their lives away in conflicts far from their homes. I will also pity those who are forced into conflicts because they feel that they have no other choice but to fight and kill. 

I will HONOR those few who stand up for truth and for peace, who understand that their are very few reasons that we should be fighting and killing each other, who are the sovereign masters of their own minds and consciously choose to live their principles every day of their lives.

War is the most obscene word in any language. In my opinion, there is no reason we should honor anyone who engages in it.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 9, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> War is the most obscene word in any language. In my opinion, there is no reason we should honor anyone who engages in it.



I agreed or at least sympathized with much of what you said, but I can't follow you here. The Americans who died in WWII in Europe, for example, did a _good thing_ and deserve praise and honor for it. What's being done in Afghanistan is intended to prevent another 9/11 and while that may or may not be what happens (or the best way to achieve it), I'm glad there are people prepared to do that for me.

Let's continue being frank, though. The military doesn't pay all that well, though it does have a nice pension plan. Speaking with reverence of the Soldier is a form of non-monetary payment in the form of ego strokes that helps keep the cost of an army down by encouraging people to do that job partially in return for wanted respect. There's an economic motivation behind the outpouring of respect...as there is in praising how hard it is to be a schoolteacher, where again praise and respect are substituted for higher taxes.

But that doesn't mean that much of it isn't actually deserving of respect...if you join the service, especially now, I'm proud of you for it. It just means the patriotism is played up for dollar-related reasons too.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 9, 2009)

arnisador said:


> I agreed or at least sympathized with much of what you said, but I can't follow you here. The Americans who died in WWII in Europe, for example, did a _good thing_ and deserve praise and honor for it. What's being done in Afghanistan is intended to prevent another 9/11 and while that may or may not be what happens (or the best way to achieve it), I'm glad there are people prepared to do that for me.


 
We are never given all of the information when we, as a society, have to make decisions regarding war.  For example, would American's have been so eager to fight the Nazi's if it would have shared that American Financial Interests funded their rise to power?  Or would we be so keen on going into Afghanistan if it would have been shown that multinational corporations were viewing the Taliban mainly as as an obstacle to the extraction of resources?  As far as 9/11 is concerned, that is an unresolved issue for me.  I believe that we don't really know what happened on that day...and that we never will...so I'm not so willing to support war in the name of that attack.  

In any regard, I believe there is always another way besides war.  People who pick up arms and kill each other decide to do so at the expense of living peacefully.  For me, it's as simple as that...and that is not an honorable decision, in my opinion.  If I choose to pick up a weapon to defend myself or my family, that is still a choice that I would make and its not something that I should be lionized for.  It's a regrettable, unfortunately, and terrible situation that myself and other people around me should be working in concert to prevent.



arnisador said:


> Let's continue being frank, though. The military doesn't pay all that well, though it does have a nice pension plan. Speaking with reverence of the Soldier is a form of non-monetary payment in the form of ego strokes that helps keep the cost of an army down by encouraging people to do that job partially in return for wanted respect. There's an economic motivation behind the outpouring of respect...as there is in praising how hard it is to be a schoolteacher, where again praise and respect are substituted for higher taxes.


 
I agree and I would add that it's also part of being in a militaristic society that clings to many aspects of colonialism where the intent of foreign adventures is to take whatever we can by force.  The people who benefit from this system need to convince people that doing this is the "right" thing to do and they need to actually convince people to do it.  The praise serves a social function in propagating the system.



arnisador said:


> ...if you join the service, especially now, I'm proud of you for it.


 
I feel terrible for people who volunteer for the armed forces.  IMO, they don't know who they really serve and they have to sell themselves in ways that are too terrible to mention.  Imagine giving your life so another person can get rich?  Imagine being convinced to do so because you sincerely wish to protect your family and your community?  Imagine fighting thousands of miles away and realizing that it's all a lie.  People who volunteer deserve our pity and our efforts to put a stop to these terrible wars.  IMO, there's nothing to have pride in and nothing honorable being done.  This is a tragedy and the people who caused it for their benefit deserve our collective anger.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 9, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> We are never given all of the information when we, as a society, have to make decisions regarding war.  For example, would American's have been so eager to fight the Nazi's if it would have shared that American Financial Interests funded their rise to power?



The "real reason" we went into WWII is separate from if it was "right" to get into WWII.



> In any regard, I believe there is always another way besides war.  People who pick up arms and kill each other decide to do so at the expense of living peacefully.  For me, it's as simple as that....



Like Chamberlin with his "peace in our time" idea while Hitler invaded all of Europe? When your neighbor is being slaughtered and you decide to "pick up arms" only to "protect your own"...I call that cowardice.

Sorry..it sounds like a lot of justifications to me....while its never "good" sometimes war is absolutely necessary.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 9, 2009)

To suggest the Armed Forces volunteer in ignorance is an insult to their intelligence. The British squaddie from the days of Agincourt has known exactly what they are doing and why but they still do it, why? because they are British squaddies and thats what they do.
if you want to know what they think about the Afghan war have a peek at this, don't be offended, they are plain speaking and they've never been gung ho.
http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/t=127752/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=0.html
http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/t=127680.html
http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/t=127580.html


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 9, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> To suggest the Armed Forces volunteer in ignorance is an insult to their intelligence. The British squaddie from the days of Agincourt has known exactly what they are doing and why but they still do it, why? because they are British squaddies and thats what they do.
> 
> If you want to know what they think about the Afghan war have a peek at this, don't be offended, they are plain speaking and they've never been gung ho.
> 
> ...


 
If this is how people feel, why are their so many re-enlistments?  If people really feel like its a waste of time and that the situation is messed up and that they shouldn't even be there, then why are "the troops" continuing to fight?  On a large scale, I can't think of anything but mass ignorance that would be an adequate explanation.  I feel terrible for all of these guys knowing that they are putting their lives on the line everyday for a war that is not worth their sacrifice.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 9, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> The "real reason" we went into WWII is separate from if it was "right" to get into WWII.


 
I understand what you are saying here, however, I think that you are missing the point that I was trying to make.  Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Regime that followed never had to happen.  During his whole rise to power and all of the way up through the war, he was funded by financial interests that were based in Western Europe and the United States.  If these banks had stopped making loans to Germany, the Nazis would have crumbled peacefully.  

The point I am making is that the money for these war machines has to come from somewhere.  No loans = no war.  All of this begs a very important question.  Why?  Why are regimes like the Nazis built up?  Why do international banks fund both sides in a conflict?  Why are loans made to nations when they clearly will lead to war?

When one begins to study the financial history of the world, some very interesting things begin to come clear.



Archangel M said:


> Like Chamberlin with his "peace in our time" idea while Hitler invaded all of Europe? When your neighbor is being slaughtered and you decide to "pick up arms" only to "protect your own"...I call that cowardice.
> 
> Sorry..it sounds like a lot of justifications to me....while its never "good" sometimes war is absolutely necessary.


 
I agree with you here.  Sometimes a situation progresses to a point where war becomes necessary.  We collectively get to those points by making choices that lead to them.  It isn't an Honorable outcome, IMO.  It's tragic.


----------



## seasoned (Jul 9, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> If this is how people feel, why are their so many re-enlistments? If people really feel like its a waste of time and that the situation is messed up and that they shouldn't even be there, then why are "the troops" continuing to fight? On a large scale, I can't think of anything but mass ignorance that would be an adequate explanation. I feel terrible for all of these guys knowing that they are putting their lives on the line everyday for a war that is not worth their sacrifice.


The war is not about Afghanistan, that is just where we are taking a stand, for now. Pakistan is the real problem, with their unstable government, and a nuclear arsenal that could fall into the wrong hands. Thats why we are there.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 9, 2009)

seasoned said:


> The war is not about Afghanistan, that is just where we are taking a stand, for now. Pakistan is the real problem, with their unstable government, and a nuclear arsenal that could fall into the wrong hands. Thats why we are there.


 
That's the story that I keep hearing.  Even heard it from the Soviets who also thought it would be nice to have a trade route straight up through central Asia.  IMO, its more complicated then that, *Seasoned*.  First Afghanistan, THEN Pakistan...


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 9, 2009)

If everybody would argee to "play nice" then there would be no reason for war. If you believe that if WE would only do "x" then there would be no war than I think you are extremely naive. 

All the "if onlys" here smack of time travel and bell un-ringing. While we as a nation should do our best to "play fair", we also have to look out for our citizens safety and interests. If that leads to war against thouse who would harm us then so be it. Anybody with as much knowledge of human history and human nature as they seem to believe they have will see that thousands of years of EXACTLY the same behavior should be a pretty good indicator of what other nations are ready and willing to inflict upon us if given the opportunity....

BTW: I have meet MANY people in uniform that I believe are FAR more intilligent and "clear eyed" about why they do what they do than some folks who like to look down their smug noses at servicemen and women as "ignorant".


----------



## arnisador (Jul 9, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> We are never given all of the information when we, as a society, have to make decisions regarding war.  For example, would American's have been so eager to fight the Nazi's if it would have shared that American Financial Interests funded their rise to power?  Or would we be so keen on going into Afghanistan if it would have been shown that multinational corporations were viewing the Taliban mainly as as an obstacle to the extraction of resources?  As far as 9/11 is concerned, that is an unresolved issue for me.  I believe that we don't really know what happened on that day...and that we never will...so I'm not so willing to support war in the name of that attack.
> 
> In any regard, I believe there is always another way besides war.  People who pick up arms and kill each other decide to do so at the expense of living peacefully.  For me, it's as simple as that...
> [...]
> I feel terrible for people who volunteer for the armed forces.  IMO, they don't know who they really serve and they have to sell themselves in ways that are too terrible to mention.



Wow. OK, you and I are very far apart in our views on these things.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 9, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> If everybody would argee to "play nice" then there would be no reason for war. If you believe that if WE would only do "x" then there would be no war than I think you are extremely naive.
> 
> All the "if onlys" here smack of time travel and bell un-ringing. While we as a nation should do our best to "play fair", we also have to look out for our citizens safety and interests. If that leads to war against thouse who would harm us then so be it. Anybody with as much knowledge of human history and human nature as they seem to believe they have will see that thousands of years of EXACTLY the same behavior should be a pretty good indicator of what other nations are ready and willing to inflict upon us if given the opportunity....
> 
> BTW: I have meet MANY people in uniform that I believe are FAR more intilligent and "clear eyed" about why they do what they do than some folks who like to look down their smug noses at servicemen and women as "ignorant".


 
There will always be a need to defend oneself.  That is different then gallavanting across the world with colonial ambitions.  I've met my fair share of servicemen and women who have a clear idea in their hearts about serving and protecting their countrymen.  This idea is an honorable idea...yet the idea, IMO, is very far from reality.  Many soldiers discover this too late...check out Tez3's sources.  There's nothing honorable about fighting these kinds of wars...its tragic.

Looking at the financial side of war is definitely not unringing the bell or time travel or what not.  THAT is the key, as I mentioned before, to stopping it.  If one learns as much as one can about who pays the bills then one will learn who they really serve.  If we remove the power make loans and fund both sides, then we remove the power of financial interests to use war as a tool.  

As long as we allow banks and governments in collusion to create money via loans, we give the control of our young men and women into the hands of the people who can create the money.  This is the way its been throughout our modern era going back hundreds of years to the inception of the ideas for fiat currency and fractional reserve banking.  There's no shame in ignorance.  It's simply something that must change if we want peace in our world.


----------



## seasoned (Jul 9, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> There will always be a need to defend oneself. That is different then gallavanting across the world with colonial ambitions. I've met my fair share of servicemen and women who have a clear idea in their hearts about serving and protecting their countrymen. This idea is an honorable idea...yet the idea, IMO, is very far from reality. Many soldiers discover this too late...check out Tez3's sources. There's nothing honorable about fighting these kinds of wars...its tragic.
> 
> Looking at the financial side of war is definitely not unringing the bell or time travel or what not. THAT is the key, as I mentioned before, to stopping it. If one learns as much as one can about who pays the bills then one will learn who they really serve. If we remove the power make loans and fund both sides, then we remove the power of financial interests to use war as a tool.
> 
> As long as we allow banks and governments in collusion to create money via loans, we give the control of our young men and women into the hands of the people who can create the money. This is the way its been throughout our modern era going back hundreds of years to the inception of the ideas for fiat currency and fractional reserve banking. There's no shame in ignorance. *It's simply something that must change if we want peace in our world*.


Not to get too religious here, but there will never be peace, on this earth. There will always be wars.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 9, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> As long as we allow banks and governments in collusion to create money via loans



Wow, this is a really strong position--more than the usual anti-usury position. I think you're seeing conspiracies that aren't there and tracing causes too far back.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 9, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Wow, this is a really strong position--more than the usual anti-usury position. I think you're seeing conspiracies that aren't there and tracing causes too far back.


 
There's plenty of ways to learn more about this matter.  Here are two...

1.  http://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/0912986212

2.  http://www.amazon.com/Ascent-Money-Financial-History-World/dp/1594201927/ref=ed_oe_h

Take a look and see for yourself...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 9, 2009)

seasoned said:


> Not to get too religious here, but there will never be peace, on this earth. There will always be wars.


 
I am creating a Foundation that is dedicated to Liberty and Peace.  This Foundation will fund a private school, a multi-media company, and a wellness clinic.  I may not see peace in this world in my life time, but I will die knowing that I worked for it.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 9, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> There's plenty of ways to learn more about this matter.



I think you misapprehend my meaning. I don't feel undereducated about this matter. I think you've taken extreme and unsupportable positions.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 9, 2009)

arnisador said:


> I think you misapprehend my meaning. I don't feel undereducated about this matter. I think you've taken extreme and unsupportable positions.


 
Care to elaborate?  I may have jumped too far and I'd like to read what you think.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 10, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> If this is how people feel, why are their so many re-enlistments? If people really feel like its a waste of time and that the situation is messed up and that they shouldn't even be there, then why are "the troops" continuing to fight? On a large scale, I can't think of anything but mass ignorance that would be an adequate explanation. I feel terrible for all of these guys knowing that they are putting their lives on the line everyday for a war that is not worth their sacrifice.


 
I told you why, because they are the British Army and thats what they do so don't you dare call them ignorant, they are intelligent, warm, the best people I know and you will never ever understand why they do what they do so please don't call them names. 
They know that they also make a difference in peoples lives, that what they do actually helps people. Our medics are out there everyday helping the local population, the soldiers are building schools, hospitals, orphanages, clean water supplies for the locals. They go out and touch peoples lives as well as defend them.
They know very well what they are sacrificing their lives for and they also know that they would do it all again. I think it's a character trait that many non British and non British miitary will never understand. The British squaddie is a unique entity in this world and is a steadfast comfort in fast changing times. they aren't angels far from it but when the chips are down they are the finest people in the world to be with. Until you've spent time with them and get even a glimmer of an idea of what they are about I'd suggest you don't make assumptions about them.

They aren't pawns in a game for you to feel pity for them, they aren't poor, young and ignorant conscipts who have nothing better to do, these are warriors every damn one of them, and most people aren't fit to lick their boots.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 10, 2009)

You have a very...romantic view of a phenomenon that surely admits sociological and economic explanations. It's basically the same way the U.S. Marine Corps markets itself to potential enlistees--that there's an allure about it that is beyond pecuniary rewards. "Because we're British" is great for stoking the fires of patriotism but one can look deeper than that.

You don't really seem to enjoy discussing things, do you?



Tez3 said:


> and most people aren't fit to lick their boots.



Ludicrous jingoism. Do they themselves look down on the populace they protect in this demeaning way?


----------



## arnisador (Jul 10, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> Care to elaborate?  I may have jumped too far and I'd like to read what you think.



You wrote, at various points in this thread:



> As long as we allow banks and governments in collusion to create money via loans, we give the control of our young men and women into the hands of the people who can create the money.
> [...]
> As far as 9/11 is concerned, that is an unresolved issue for me. I believe that we don't really know what happened on that day...
> [...]
> ...



The first two points sound like conspiracy theories, and the others are too extremely stated. I doubt France felt there was another way to handle the German invasion, for example...unless you count the Vichy regime. Whether dismantling the whole international monetary system would prevent war is, at the least, a moot point. Loans help ease poverty in developing nations, as just one example.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 10, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I told you why, because they are the British Army and thats what they do so don't you dare call them ignorant, they are intelligent, warm, the best people I know and you will never ever understand why they do what they do so please don't call them names.
> They know that they also make a difference in peoples lives, that what they do actually helps people. Our medics are out there everyday helping the local population, the soldiers are building schools, hospitals, orphanages, clean water supplies for the locals. They go out and touch peoples lives as well as defend them.
> They know very well what they are sacrificing their lives for and they also know that they would do it all again. I think it's a character trait that many non British and non British miitary will never understand. The British squaddie is a unique entity in this world and is a steadfast comfort in fast changing times. they aren't angels far from it but when the chips are down they are the finest people in the world to be with. Until you've spent time with them and get even a glimmer of an idea of what they are about I'd suggest you don't make assumptions about them.
> 
> They aren't pawns in a game for you to feel pity for them, they aren't poor, young and ignorant conscipts who have nothing better to do, these are warriors every damn one of them, and most people aren't fit to lick their boots.


 
This is how the life of a "warrior" is marketed. It's the program that gets people in the door. I know they aren't conscripts, these are men and women who are deciding to buy a product. This product serves an agenda and you can learn more about this by taking a look at its historical track record.  This track record is not honorable.

The intent to serve and protect your fellow countrymen is honorable and I respect that.  What this looks like to me is cleaning up in the community after a disaster, enforcing the laws of the community and working for peace so that we don't have to pick up our weapons.

If more people viewed the killing of our fellow man as a dishonorable, regrettable, and albeit necessary last resort, there would be a lot less war.  With my karate, this works for me.  I have been in very few fights throughout my entire life.  I've been able to de-escalate and avoid most violent encounters through adjusting my behavior.  The times that this hasn't worked for me are when I've made mistakes and paid the consequences.

I see war and international conflict in the same way.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 10, 2009)

arnisador said:


> The first two points sound like conspiracy theories.


 
That's a judgement that you are making that is misinformed. The first point is historical and you could learn more about it by taking a look at the history of money and war.

The second point is not extreme, at least not when you look at the evidence presented. Being unconvinced by the government's explanation is perfectly logical.



arnisador said:


> and the others are too extremely stated.


 
They might be extremely stated, but then, IMO, going to war is an extreme measure and something that is ultimately tragic and dishonorable. Some of it is a matter of subjective opinon because I feel that resorting to violence should be the "last" resort. Some of it is historical, thus the study of how wars and international finance inter-relate is important. The last point is simply how I feel. War is obcene not worthy of our honor. It's not a commonly held position, however, I think that if you look at the details, it's supportable.



arnisador said:


> I doubt France felt there was another way to handle the German invasion, for example...unless you count the Vichy regime. Whether dismantling the whole international monetary system would prevent war is, at the least, a moot point. Loans help ease poverty in developing nations, as just one example.


 
This statement is made in ignorance of international finance, war, the IMF and the World Bank. If you consider how the current MIC around the world was created, is maintained, and expanded you'll discover a system of finance that is perfectly situated for that purpose and also for controlling the various MICs of the world. The details, in the form of what the people who created said, point to the fact that controlling war as a tool was always a purpose.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 10, 2009)

Dont get him started on the 9/11 crap AGAIN!! I think that when you look at peoples beliefs in a whole you begin to see a pattern. There are threads of global conspiracy across almost ALL beliefs in some folks wolrdviews. I any crowd you stand a chance of bumping into someone who is a conspiracy nut, or who is preparing for the UN troops to invade by stockpiling weapons. Its all mental "pacifiers" that people use to make sense out of life...even if their view is all doom and gloom there is some sort of comfort in knowing (or believing you know) how the world works.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 10, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> That's a judgement that you are making that is misinformed. The first point is historical and you could learn more about it by taking a look at the history of money and war.
> 
> The second point is not extreme, at least not when you look at the evidence presented. Being unconvinced by the government's explanation is perfectly logical.
> 
> ...


 
We have GOT to show 'kumu the MGS 4 game storyline, it's as if he ought to have gotten a writing credit.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 10, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> We have GOT to show 'kumu the MGS 4 game storyline, it's as if he ought to have gotten a writing credit.


 
LOL - maybe that's what I should do with my time instead of blathering about on the internet about weird political ideas.  Oh well, back to karate...


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jul 10, 2009)

The problem with conspiracy theories is that people are just not competent enough to carry them out. Sorry I don&#8217;t believe people have the ability to plan, execute and keep secret some of the theories out there. We&#8217;re not that smart.

The bigger the conspiracy, generally the more people who are involved, hence greater chance of a leak.

If conspiracy&#8217;s do occur, how the Hell did Nixon get caught? You would think that with all the power he could have kept a lid on the whole Watergate thing.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 10, 2009)

arnisador said:


> You have a very...romantic view of a phenomenon that surely admits sociological and economic explanations. It's basically the same way the U.S. Marine Corps markets itself to potential enlistees--that there's an allure about it that is beyond pecuniary rewards. "Because we're British" is great for stoking the fires of patriotism but one can look deeper than that.
> 
> You don't really seem to enjoy discussing things, do you?
> 
> ...


 
there's no bloody allure in the armed forces trust me, and I damn well mean it about there being people not fit to lick their boots, the ones who live off social security, who whinge if they aren't given a television, who have never worked a day in their lives so shove that in your pipe and smoke it.
I don't like discussing things, don't make me larf, sunshine, don't accuse me of jingoism and don't bloody patronise me.
British squaddies are the most cantankerous, most drunken, most troublesome, insubordinate buggers around but I reiterate they are who I want watching my back and they do bless them. I have no romantic ideas and the Brtish army doesn't either, it doesn't market itself as being an elite or that it's anything other than blood sweat, tears and death. They are warriors because I have seen them fight. they join up knowing exactly what to expect and do what the army has always had to do, the job of shovelling **** uphill, clearing up after the mess the politicians make, yeah they complain, oh they complain but they do the job all the same. 'Because we're British' isn't jingoistic, it means we just get stuck in and do the job nought to do with patriotism. Being British is what got us through the Blitz, Dunkirk, the IRA bombings, the 7/7 bombings etc, being British is about making do, making the best of a bad job, being British is when something bad happens everyone says 'never mind' and gets on with life. Stick your patriotism, keep it for the rogues.
You have read what I posted totally wrongly and because I've had a really ****** night and because we've just lost 8 soldiers in the past few hours I've absolutely no time for people putting words in my mouth and spouting bollocks.
Face facts, your government at the time started a war, then they invaded a country and us led by idiots backed you up. Don't blame the forces blame your damn government.

It's fine sitting at a computer pontificating about peace and how we should be brothers but you government sort of forgot that didn't they when the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was mooted. Don't say oh well I didn't vote for Bush, some bugger did and some bugger voted for BLiar and some bugger has done for our troops haven't they so spare us the sanctimonious lecture, some of us have funerals to go to.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 10, 2009)

Er..having been a soldier myself Tez I share your emotions, but my countrymen lead the race in sacrifices of life, limb, blood and tears in this one..and we likewise only do the job that is asked of us so please dont make this into a UK vs US thing. I can laud my nations servicemen and women just as loudly as you can yours.

In another vein..I wouldnt lump Iraq and Afghanistan into the same basket...IMO Afgh. was the war we should have been concentrating on. While Iraq may have "had it coming" since the first gulf war cease fire, I can see a debate in its timing and necessity. However Afghanistan had NO objections from anybody when we went in there. I think its been unfairly packaged with Iraq.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 11, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Er..having been a soldier myself Tez I share your emotions, but my countrymen lead the race in sacrifices of life, limb, blood and tears in this one..and we likewise only do the job that is asked of us so please dont make this into a UK vs US thing. I can laud my nations servicemen and women just as loudly as you can yours.
> 
> In another vein..I wouldnt lump Iraq and Afghanistan into the same basket...IMO Afgh. was the war we should have been concentrating on. While Iraq may have "had it coming" since the first gulf war cease fire, I can see a debate in its timing and necessity. However Afghanistan had NO objections from anybody when we went in there. I think its been unfairly packaged with Iraq.


 
I'm not making it into anything, I'm answering posts on here that accuse the soldiers ( yours as well) of being naive dupes as well as stupid.It really annoys me that people attack service people in such a condescending way. The attack was also a personal one on me for being 'romantic' and 'jingoistic' which is bollocks, the military here whether at war or not are contributing to the country, earning their living and trying to make a good life for them and theirs while we have layabouts who live off the tax payer, have countless kids we pay for, live rent free, are given money every week out of the public purse and I sodding well get called jingoistic for saying they aren't fit to lick the boots of servicemen? No way!

Btw this is our fourth war in Afghanistan not first. Plenty of people here complained about the war there this time round. Most Brits don't think we should be there and Brown is so low in the polls, Labour will probably lose the next election on the Afghan issue.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 11, 2009)

Dont let em get you down Tez. Its always been my opinion that if you really look at the overall picture of the types who like to look down on soldiers you will find that they are 99.9% males who never served themselves. They will say that it was because they were too smart, or too wired into the reality of life...etc. etc. but I think theres more.

I think its an ego thing to justify some sort of repressed regret for never having stepped up themselves. Much like many guys seem to like to poke at cops. Guys have that "pecking order" thing hardwired and even if they can rationalize a denial of it the soldier, cop ...or anybody else in whats percieved as an "alpha male" role...there seems to be some need to knock them down so you feel better. A lot like some guys overboard homophobia is likely expressed to reinforce their insecurity in their masculinity.

PS-This is not to say that ALL those who never served fall into this category. The vast majority of guys who didnt enlist have no issues whatsoever with insecurity because of it...it was simply a choice. Some of the bravest, toughest and best people I know didnt serve.

But many...espically in the "warrior" Martial Artist crowd...seem to fit the bill. In my experience the types also seem to collect many weapons, motorcycles, study military history, like to do the "navy seal workouts", focus on the "I can shoot better than most cops" thing....

Again, I myself fit into many of those categories. Im just trying to flesh out a "type" that I seem to find. Take that as you will...Im no sociologist/psychologist, and I could very well be projecting, because I joined up in part because as a young man I felt like I was "less" than my buddies who enlisted, so instead of living a life of regrets, wannabeism and "could have been"...I just went and "did".


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jul 11, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> War is the most obscene word in any language. In my opinion, there is no reason we should honor anyone who engages in it.


Wow...what a despicable sentiment. Better men than you and I die for our freedoms and you make a statement like this....wow.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 11, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> Wow...what a despicable sentiment. Better men than you and I die for our freedoms and you make a statement like this....wow.


 
I can't think of a more horrific thing then war.  War has the potential to bring humanity to *extinction*.  It's not something we should honor as a society.  It is something we should avoid until it really is the last resort.  

As far as people "dying for my freedoms" none of the men and women dying far afield are doing that, IMO.  They are dying to serve a greater agenda that has little to do with the common man.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 11, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I'm not making it into anything, I'm answering posts on here that accuse the soldiers ( yours as well) of being naive dupes as well as stupid.


 
I'm sorry for your loss, Irene.  This isn't a time to engage in little political battles.  I apologize for coming off as condescending and contemptuous.  The bottom line is that I want to stop this madness.  I want to stop these losses and make sure the honorable intent behind the will to serve is put to honorable purposes.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 11, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Dont let em get you down Tez. Its always been my opinion that if you really look at the overall picture of the types who like to look down on soldiers you will find that they are 99.9% males who never served themselves. They will say that it was because they were too smart, or too wired into the reality of life...etc. etc. but I think theres more.
> 
> I think its an ego thing to justify some sort of repressed regret for never having stepped up themselves. Much like many guys seem to like to poke at cops. Guys have that "pecking order" thing hardwired and even if they can rationalize a denial of it the soldier, cop ...or anybody else in whats percieved as an "alpha male" role...there seems to be some need to knock them down so you feel better. A lot like some guys overboard homophobia is likely expressed to reinforce their insecurity in their masculinity.
> 
> ...


 
I could make a comment about "pacifiers" or some such, but why bother?

There are people on this planet that have sincere beliefs and are willing to stand up for those beliefs even if they aren't the same beliefs that you hold dear.  You can make up stories about these people and people could make up stories about people who say things like you said.  

For instance, a retort could look like, "people who think things like that above are really just upset because they never had the moral backbone to stand up for anything good that was unpopular.  Cowards!"

Where does that leave everyone?

I admit, I started this little tiff because I jumped in with some strong beliefs and didn't bother preface them with enough information.  I am sorry for that because I realize that makes me come off as a condescending jerk.  

What I would like everyone to realize is that I am sincere about what I beleive and about why I beleive it.  I want to see Peace in my lifetime and I want to see the sacrifices we make for war turned to bettering humanity.  

I also realize that this is going to take questioning of a lot of cherished beliefs and that people are going to have to think of war and how war is financed in a different way.  There's a lot of learning that needs to happen.  People need to understand how war and international finance connect.  They need to understand how both of those connect to public education.  They need to understand how our society suffers because of what we sacrifice for war.  Being ignorant of these things is not something that needs to be judged.  It just is.

All of this stems from a deep spring in me.  If you are really interested, I could tell you that story.  The bottom line is that my life has given me a perspective that is different then a lot of people and this is based off of many of the attachments that I've formed.  This is how it happens for all people regardless of logic.

In the meantime, I keep moving foreward with what I need to do in order to accomplish my goals.  Coming here to talk about things isn't the best use of my time, but I have found community here and I do value that.

Anyway, I still believe what I do and I respect you for what you believe.  Lets just listen to each other and see what happens.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 11, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> there's no bloody allure in the armed forces trust me, and I damn well mean it about there being people not fit to lick their boots, the ones who live off social security



Ah, there we go. So it's the poor who are the problem? They're lazy? Seems unrelated to the issue at hand.



> don't accuse me of jingoism and don't bloody patronise me.



Patronize you? I thought I was being quite plain in what I said. You've happily swallowed the mythology and refuse to see the facts. If it helps you get through your day, that's fine. Keep believing what you've been told in school and by the govt. 



> British squaddies are the most cantankerous, most drunken, most troublesome, insubordinate buggers around but I reiterate they are who I want watching my back



Try the IDF. They're incredible.



> Don't blame the forces



I'm not sure if you're having trouble following a discussion that forces you to grapple with your internalized rainbow-colored view of things or if you're intentionally changing to this as an ad hominem attack, but no one is blaming the armed forces for anything--that doesn't even make sense. We were discussing what motivates people to join the service. Simplistic "You don't support the troops" rhetoric and assigning blame for the current wars is just distraction for those unable to defend their position.



> It's fine sitting at a computer pontificating about peace and how we should be brothers but you government sort of forgot that didn't they when the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was mooted.



I'm not the one who was pontificating about peace--that was *maunakumu*. I only agreed with him that economic incentives and positive portrayals help encourage people to join the service. You are arguing against money and the military lifestyle being a factor in people choosing to join the service if you are arguing with me.

Your position is basically that of the armed services' advertising firms. If that simplified view of things makes your day go by more smoothly, enjoy it. It doesn't matter to me.



Tez3 said:


> The attack was also a personal one on me for being 'romantic' and 'jingoistic' which is bollocks, the military here whether at war or not are contributing to the country, earning their living and trying to make a good life for them and theirs while we have layabouts who live off the tax payer, have countless kids we pay for, live rent free, are given money every week out of the public purse and I sodding well get called jingoistic for saying they aren't fit to lick the boots of servicemen?.



Yup. Denigrating others to subhuman status in order to glorify the servicemen is exactly that.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 11, 2009)

arnisdor, you really are determined to put words into my mouth aren't you. The poor, really, you think it's the poor thats the problem, my dear man, you have really no idea how things are here have you. These aren't poor people, they are chavs, people who make a living, a very good living out of benefit fraud. The poor are out there working and doing the best they can.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/8125364.stm
http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/news/news-dsd/news-dsd-080709-four-convicted-of.htm
http://www.huntsdc.gov.uk/News+and+...008/February/benefit+fraud+cases+in+court.htm

Swallow the myth? what myth? I served in the forces and continue to work with them, been with them for 37 years now, so what bloody myth? I know the realities better than you. I would tell people not to join up unless they really knew what they were getting into.

Oh and my parents were IDF, I have dual nationality, and yes that is allowed here.

Hey I don't give a fig for your inventions and sly turning of what I say, if you chose to think parts of my posts are about you, well, if the cap fits wear it.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 11, 2009)

the British Army 'denigrating people to make them look subhuman'




 
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/GurkhasToMentorSanginsNewPolice.htm
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...RoyalEngineersHelpReconstructionInHelmand.htm
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/ReconstructingLashkarGah.htm
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...paresTroopsForWinningAfghanHeartsAndMinds.htm
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...litaryAfghanJournalistsDevelopTheirSkills.htm


----------



## seasoned (Jul 11, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> I am creating a Foundation that is dedicated to Liberty and Peace. This Foundation will fund a private school, a multi-media company, and a wellness clinic. I may not see peace in this world in my life time, but I will die knowing that I worked for it.


I can't fault you for that. Everyone should strive for peace, but have the forth sight to know when that peace, and the freedoms that go along with it, are in jeopardy. I commend you for your work, but it is the people that walk that wall, that afford us the luxury to do that work you talk about.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 11, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> the British Army 'denigrating people to make them look subhuman'



This wasn't about the British Army, so your links are irrelevant. It was about you in particular describing a broad swath of the British public as being literally unfit to lick the boots of British soldiers. That is a statement that debases people in order to put all individual members of the military on a pedestal as more-than-merely-human altruists. If there's one tyhing I have learned from working with the military, it's that their backgrounds and motivations for serving are diverse and not easily summarized. Perhaps it's different over there and all enlistees have the same groupthink. But once again you are attempting to deflect attention from your own degrading statements about others who are different from you. I'm speaking of _your_ statements. Post footage of you helping the poor.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 11, 2009)

seasoned said:


> I can't fault you for that. Everyone should strive for peace, but have the forth sight to know when that peace, and the freedoms that go along with it, are in jeopardy. I commend you for your work, but it is the people that walk that wall, that afford us the luxury to do that work you talk about.


 
I feel dis-illusioned because I don't see our military doing this and I feel that they haven't done this for a long time.  I know there is a need to "stand up on the wall" and protect our society and I feel that we should look at this as more of an unfortunately necessity lest we grow to fond of our wars and our warriors and too easily dismiss the prices that we pay for them.

As far as honoring the fallen, for me it is a matter of perspective.  There was a lot that went into creating war that many people don't realize.  So much that it all seems so bloody tragic because it all could have been avoided.  Thus I feel the way that I do.  It doesn't seem so honorable when percieved so tragically.


----------



## seasoned (Jul 11, 2009)

I thought you were a peace maker. You sure have some strong opinions pertaining to the military. I feel the military, as with society itself, has good and bad, in their ranks. But in either case, I am not going to abandon one or the other. There are times I feel life sucks, and most of the people in it, but then it would be very lonely living here alone. As for the military, they serve a very important mission. The only way we can fully realize that is to eliminate them. But by doing that, we would heap destruction onto ourself, because this world has many barbarians in it that think peace is a 4 letter word.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 11, 2009)

seasoned said:


> I thought you were a peace maker. You sure have some strong opinions pertaining to the military. I feel the military, as with society itself, has good and bad, in their ranks. But in either case, I am not going to abandon one or the other. There are times I feel life sucks, and most of the people in it, but then it would be very lonely living here alone. As for the military, they serve a very important mission. The only way we can fully realize that is to eliminate them. But by doing that, we would heap destruction onto ourself, because this world has many barbarians in it that think peace is a 4 letter word.


 
I'm not anti-military.  I do see a need.  However, I also feel that it is being misused.  In my mind, people standing up and fighting as a last resort, learning from the situation so it doesn't happen again, and people basically living peacefully with each other.  I view standing armies as a waste and a monumental threat to our freedoms.  This view is a combination of the views shared by Thomas Jefferson and Dwight Eisenhower.

We've got a long way to go in order to see real change in current attitudes.

PS - upon re-reading previous posts in this thread, I feel the need to point out my self righteousness and apologize for it.  That's not effective communication on my behalf.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 12, 2009)

arnisador said:


> This wasn't about the British Army, so your links are irrelevant. It was about you in particular describing *a broad* *swath of the British public* as being literally unfit to lick the boots of British soldiers. That is a statement that debases people in order to put all individual members of the military on a pedestal as more-than-merely-human altruists. If there's one tyhing I have learned from working with the military, it's that their backgrounds and motivations for serving are diverse and not easily summarized. Perhaps it's different over there and all enlistees have the same groupthink. But once again you are attempting to deflect attention from your own degrading statements about others who are different from you. I'm speaking of _your_ statements. Post footage of you helping the poor.


 
Are you calling the British public criminals then, you've got a cheek haven't you? I said the people who are benefit fraudsters and you decide that's a greater part of the British public. Well we can see where you're coming from then. Not anti British much are you?
*I have said nothing about the poor people of this country*, *you brought that up*, I am talking about the people who claim benefits and shouldn't, they cost this country billions of pounds. If you had bothered to look at the links I put up you will know that but *you choose to twist my words again and again.*


Once again just to clear this up for you, this is who I'm talking about not the 'poor' or the greater swathe of Britain ( do you think we are a third world country btw to have so many poor?)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ailed-after-secretly-filmed-playing-golf.html
do note how much he's defrauded the country and perhaps you'll see why the taxpayers here aren't happy bunnies about people like this.
And how about this one £35,000 he claimed fraudulently, thats more than many earn in a year through honest work.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...caught-pushing-cars-around-his-scrapyard.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/5303356.stm

this one, £77,000 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...icer-who-conned-77000-in-benefits-jailed.html


and you're telling me I'm debasing these people, chum, you are having a laugh.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 12, 2009)

This is a digression but I think a necessary one because I don't think non Brits understand what we mean here when we talk about people who are on benefits but don't bother working etc. It's being confused with people who are poor. We have many genuine claimants for benefits and I wouldn't begrudge them a penny.We have many who work two jobs because they are too proud to go on benefits.
Here all working people pay National Insurance, this is for our medical needs plus if we are unemployed we can claim dole money. Also if you are unemployed you can claim housing benefit plus claim for a great many other things,there are currently 50 types of claim you can make. Single parent don't have to go out to work until their youngest child is 16 and little attempt is made to make people who are able bodied find work.
A sub culture has developed here where there are people who live very comfortably on these benefits while either not attempting to find work or while working for 'cash in hand'. Many claim disability while not having any.

This isn't to start a debate on whether we should have this system, that could make another probably quite interesting thread but it's to explain to you why the tax payers here are sick to the back teeth of subsiding benefit cheats and of course the many who flock here thinking they will get them too.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-map-Britain-shows-sicknote-culture-end.html

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/welf...000-receive-over-20k-in-benefits-$1257510.htm

If you were paying for these cheats with your money wouldn't you think the average soldier was worth a hundred times more than these people?


----------



## arnisador (Jul 12, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Are you calling the British public criminals then, you've got a cheek haven't you?



Good night.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 12, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Good night.


 

:lfao:

So rather than admit you took what I wrote the wrong way you throw your teddy out of the pram, oh well c'est la vie.

Perhaps now we can get back to the discusson in hand.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 12, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> This is a digression but I think a necessary one because I don't think non Brits understand what we mean here when we talk about people who are on benefits but don't bother working etc. It's being confused with people who are poor. We have many genuine claimants for benefits and I wouldn't begrudge them a penny.We have many who work two jobs because they are too proud to go on benefits.
> Here all working people pay National Insurance, this is for our medical needs plus if we are unemployed we can claim dole money. Also if you are unemployed you can claim housing benefit plus claim for a great many other things,there are currently 50 types of claim you can make. Single parent don't have to go out to work until their youngest child is 16 and little attempt is made to make people who are able bodied find work.
> A sub culture has developed here where there are people who live very comfortably on these benefits while either not attempting to find work or while working for 'cash in hand'. Many claim disability while not having any.
> 
> ...



Yet thats exactly the situation a lot of my countrymen want to steer the USA into. :erg:


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 12, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Yet thats exactly the situation a lot of my countrymen want to steer the USA into. :erg:


 
I begrudge no one benefits when they need it but too many think it's a way of life and don't attempt to try to find work. I'm sure there's a fair few soldiers who have joined up to make something of themselves and to earn their living honestly and it's these that deserve our respect not scroungers.

This is the current ad for the British Army, hardly gung ho or jingoistic. If you have answers though you should probably start another thread lol!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwL7POYpiDw&feature=related


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 12, 2009)

I started another thread on military spending.  Hopefully we'll spin off some energy into there.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1197679#post1197679


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 13, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> Wow...what a despicable sentiment. Better men than you and I die for our freedoms and you make a statement like this....wow.


 
I just found a quote from...what do ya know a career military man...Gen. Patton that made me think of this thread.

Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack.


----------



## Carol (Jul 13, 2009)

Hey we wouldn't have had to worry about war if we had just given in to that pesky Yamamoto guy.  He was so looking forward to dictating peace from the White House.  

Sorry...was that too cynical? :lol2:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 13, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I just found a quote from...what do ya know a career military man...Gen. Patton that made me think of this thread.
> 
> Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack.


 
Indeed...


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 14, 2009)

"_No fuss. No flowers or razzmatazz. No tired old formulae of condolence dished out by the PM before the argy-bargy of Prime Minister's Questions begins. Just thousands of people, young and old, standing with lowered eyes and lumps in their throats at the thought of yet more young lives ended in a distant land. _
_"Sometimes, people have waited three hours to pay their respects," says Mayor Steve Bucknell. "These poor guys have no more time to give, so the least we can do is give our time."_ 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...n-Bassett-A-very-British-way-of-mourning.html


We have eight soldiers flying home to their rest today. The people will be waiting for them.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 14, 2009)

Oh my word. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8149051.stm


----------



## Carol (Jul 14, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Oh my word.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8149051.stm



:asian:


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 14, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Oh my word.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8149051.stm


 
Indeed....


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 15, 2009)

What is striking about that report is the quiet dignity of the people. There's no 'demonising the enemy', no cries for revenge, just a pride in the soldiers and the sadness of their loss. 
I doubt, to be honest that anyone was thinking of the enemy, I don't think really any of us do at times like this. As I said before, old soldiers will talk about their old enemies with respect if they feel it's right but not when actually at war. You can respect an enemies abilities but that's not the same thing.
No, to answer the OPs question, we don't respect the enemies' fallen, we don't disrepect them either, it's just not the time to think about them.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 15, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Oh my word.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8149051.stm



What a terrible loss...


----------

