Why Fight?


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Why Fight?

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 6 · Next
Author Message
Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11973
Credit: 1,796,319
RAC: 590
Bermuda
Message 1149147 - Posted: 5 Sep 2011, 12:55:54 UTC
Last modified: 5 Sep 2011, 12:57:17 UTC

During WWII, the US War Department (now DoD) produced a series of 7 documentaries entitled "Why We Fight", with each documentary focusing on a particular theatre of war.

The documentaries themselves are very interesting & shows that it was a fight that needed fighting & a fight that had to be won.

However, can anyone explain why those that are ordered to fight in today's society have to accept this on their return home?

Dumbfounded

sorry..clicked on wrong board...mods please move this to politics..thank you.
____________

Profile Michael John Hind
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Feb 07
Posts: 1300
Credit: 3,022,622
RAC: 1,018
United Kingdom
Message 1149166 - Posted: 5 Sep 2011, 14:33:40 UTC - in response to Message 1149147.

During WWII, the US War Department (now DoD) produced a series of 7 documentaries entitled "Why We Fight", with each documentary focusing on a particular theatre of war.

The documentaries themselves are very interesting & shows that it was a fight that needed fighting & a fight that had to be won.

However, can anyone explain why those that are ordered to fight in today's society have to accept this on their return home?

Dumbfounded

sorry..clicked on wrong board...mods please move this to politics..thank you.


Strange all that, Sirius?...He joined up and knew the risks involved, as he admits. He knew he could be killed, maimed or in other ways incapacitated.
He also knew that if things went against him his life could be drastically changed affecting his quality of life and those of his immediate family around him. He knew it all for he was in command of his faculties in advance of joining up. He is totally responsible for the situation he now finds himself in and that of his immediate family. He is totally at blame here....without question. He took this risk knowing that there was scant rewards for his endeavours!!

He was stupid then? But I tell you some body who is a whole lot more stupider than him and that's our UK government who allowed him to put himself in this situation in the first place. The government here were totally irresponsible and as such are fully liable for his and his families total care to a standard commensurate to that of the standard working class family. That certainly means one thing for sure, immediate appropriate housing for him and his families needs.

No government should permit their citizens to take this degree of risk without there being some form of reward if things go wrong. The reward being total financial support, when/where needed, if you become incapacitated whilst carrying out your military duties. Anyone joining up into any military force today need their heads examining if they do not have this support guarantee built into the job. Especially so where the common battles are being fought away in foreign countries and hence of no threat to out homeland.

If the government wont these type of risk players then it's time 'they' picked up the pieces fully when things go wrong. Under the circumstances I think our "Tommy Atkins" was silly here, but at least he got off his butt and did a job.
He was fundamentally working on behalf of our UK government who themselves have shown total irresponsibility as regards to what happens to these employees if they become seriously impaired for life if they receive what amounts to an industrial injury whilst carrying out their military duties.

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32636
Credit: 14,524,263
RAC: 14,109
United Kingdom
Message 1149174 - Posted: 5 Sep 2011, 15:14:18 UTC

I think I hold different views here.

He is totally responsible for the situation he now finds himself in and that of his immediate family. He is totally at blame here....without question.

He agrees with you to an extent,

Private Stringer said: ‘I knew the risks when I signed up and I have no complaints about what happened to me or the Army.

I just think the use of the word blame is inappropriate here. No-one is to blame for getting themselves injured while on active duty, these things happen in wars. What is wrong here is because of his next statement,

They have been told by Thurrock Council there is a five-year waiting list for a more suitable home. "But our flat is unsuitable for a triple amputee".

That is what Sirius was trying to highlight.

No government should permit their citizens to take this degree of risk without there being some form of reward if things go wrong. The reward being total financial support

A "reward" would be a medal for bravery, what we are talking about here is compensation for injuries received, and at an appropriate level, bearing in mind the extent of those inguries. Clearly in this case it is not acceptable for a triple amputee to wait 5 years for suitable accommodation.

However, can anyone explain why those that are ordered to fight in today's society have to accept this on their return home?

Firstly there is no conscription or call-up any more, therefore no-one is ordered to fight unless they have first joined the armed services of their own free will. They do so knowing the extent of the current British armed forces deployment around the world. Whether this country should be fighting these wars is another matter altogether.

Of course there should be adequate care and compensation for injured forces personnel re-patriated home, they have been prepared to risk their lives fighting for their country, and are entitled to it. The press don't help by publishing articles comparing the situation with Asylum seekers.

Rather than making a rational and coherent proposal to re-allocate more funds to alleviate the problem, they publish lurid headines provoking emotional reaction. In this case I have to say that the Mail has not helped by highlighting this case in that way. I am getting very disappointed in the Mail, it is getting more like the red top tabloids every day.

Profile James Sotherden
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 9127
Credit: 37,631,452
RAC: 35,217
United States
Message 1149176 - Posted: 5 Sep 2011, 15:19:40 UTC

I dont see how calling a soldier stupid for doing his bit for his country is called for. People serve for many reasons. You should be blaming the stupid politicians who send these folks of to war then treat them like garbage when the come home, Hurt or not. Its the same here in the States. Seems like illegals get more benfits than our own citizens.
____________

Old James

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11973
Credit: 1,796,319
RAC: 590
Bermuda
Message 1149177 - Posted: 5 Sep 2011, 15:21:20 UTC

Well for one thing, I don't agree with massive amounts of compensation paid out to military personnel for the simple fact is this: -

An individual is not forced to join the services, it is their personal choice & on enlistment, they are aware that should a war erupt, then while still in the services are liable to serve in combat.

It's all good & well making a decent living from the services in peacetime but war comes....

What I find a hypocritical fact of our governments is service personnel return after suffering massive injuries in a conflict which that very same government ordered them to go & treat them like that, & yet at the same time terrorists can hijack a plane, land in the UK & get given a home, $$$$$$ & everything else that benefits entails.

Hmmmn...wonder if I say stuff it, return home....hijack a plane 6 months later, land at Standsted....will I get free handouts......

More than likely all I'll collect is a massive dose of lead poisioning, so whats the difference between me & those hijackers?
____________

Profile Dr Imaginario
Send message
Joined: 10 Aug 11
Posts: 172
Credit: 22,735
RAC: 0
Portugal
Message 1149179 - Posted: 5 Sep 2011, 15:43:14 UTC

Any government has to choose what kind of armed forces they want to have. Now my country has professional armed forces, so everyone that joins are enlisted, and they know what is expect for them and yes, when you are in the forces and you get in to a combat situation, yes people die and get injured. Is fair that the veteran get proper treatment, as they somehow made a sacrifice for their country that most people are not willing to.
In my case I had no choice, there was conscription and suddenly I found myself in Bosnia doing peacekeeping. What was strange is that I got engaged in combat situation a few times, no words to describe it, and I saw people get badly injured.
I’m against of government giving money blind less to the armed forces, as even if they are needed, they also can be a money pit. I say things in the armed forces about throwing away tax payer’s money that would make anyone sick.
Bottom line, is yes we need to certify that every penny/ euro cent is well spent in the armed forces, but we can just ignore them and say that just because they are professionals they know what they are signing for.
Believe me, there is no money in the world that would pay when you are under enemy fire, the situation can’t be described and any movie you see is just, sci-fi.
If I was scared? Yes, very if I had time to think, no. Training and survival instinct spoke louder. By the way, I don’t receive any armed forces allowance for serving, and to be honest I would not receive ant unless I had got disabled.
Believe me land mines can be very nasty, most of them they are not made to kill, they are made to cripple, and also there is nothing more terrifying than having tracing bullets, or what is call yellow tip bullets flying around your head and hitting your brother in arms next to you.

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32636
Credit: 14,524,263
RAC: 14,109
United Kingdom
Message 1149188 - Posted: 5 Sep 2011, 16:07:42 UTC
Last modified: 5 Sep 2011, 16:09:10 UTC

Believe me land mines can be very nasty, most of them they are not made to kill, they are made to cripple

Exactly. When you are fighting an enemy you want to disrupt and demoralise them as much as possible. Simply killing them will help, but they will likely just bring up more reinforcements. Anti-tank or anti-personnel Land mines unfortunately are the invidious answer.

They are designed to incapacitate not kill. This brings a lot of benefits

It stops them from being a further military risk
It demoralises their troops when their buddies lose limbs
It causes the medics to have to retrieve and treat them
It costs their Government money to get them home and look after them
It causes their people to complain to the government about being in the war

That is why they are used. But didn't the UN ban land mines once? Whatever, there are still uncleared minefields all over the world from WWII.

Profile Dr Imaginario
Send message
Joined: 10 Aug 11
Posts: 172
Credit: 22,735
RAC: 0
Portugal
Message 1149194 - Posted: 5 Sep 2011, 16:16:05 UTC - in response to Message 1149188.

The UN and the Geneva convention banned a lot of things, however they are still used and done.

While in Bosnia I saw a lot of things that where forbidden, did anyone care? Not really…. At the end nobody cares… You need to be in such situation to know how it feels.
I bet that in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan it happened the same thing. In war there is a very thin line. At the end you will do anything to survive the enemy

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32636
Credit: 14,524,263
RAC: 14,109
United Kingdom
Message 1149201 - Posted: 5 Sep 2011, 16:28:22 UTC
Last modified: 5 Sep 2011, 16:44:33 UTC

I think the Geneva Convention, with its four treaties, and three protocols, particularly on the treatmnent of prisoners of war,has largely been adhered to, and has undoubtedly saved probably millions of lives.

The various UN pronuncements are just words on paper, it's a talking shop that's all. It has no teeth. To be fair the guys in blue helmets do a good peacekeeping job, but only when both sides agree.

The UN told Bush he did not have a mandate to invade Iraq. Prompting the famous response "Nobody tells America what to do". If the President of the most powerful nation on earth sticks up two fingers, what is the point of having the UN?

Profile Michael John Hind
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Feb 07
Posts: 1300
Credit: 3,022,622
RAC: 1,018
United Kingdom
Message 1149205 - Posted: 5 Sep 2011, 16:35:54 UTC - in response to Message 1149201.

I think the Geneva Convention, with its four treaties, and three protocols, particularly on the treatmnent of prisoners of war,has largely been adhered to, and has undoubtedly saved probably millions of lives.

The various UN pronuncements are just words on paper, it's a talking shop that's all. It has no teeth. To be fair the guys in blue helmets do a good peacekeeping job, but only when both sides agree.

The UN told Bush he did not have a mandate to invade Iraq. Prompting the famous response "Nobody tell America what to do". If the President of the most powrful nation on earth sticks up two fingers, what is the point of having the UN?


A reflecting "Sigh" in agreement on Chris's very poignant comments here.

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11973
Credit: 1,796,319
RAC: 590
Bermuda
Message 1149206 - Posted: 5 Sep 2011, 16:36:27 UTC - in response to Message 1149201.


The UN told Bush he did not have a mandate to invade Iraq. Prompting the famous response "Nobody tell America what to do". If the President of the most powrful nation on earth sticks up two fingers, what is the point of having the UN?



Yep & history has already proven how it's predecessor turned out....

Between the war years, there was the League of Nations which became as toothless as the UN is today....WWIII anyone?
____________

Profile Michael John Hind
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Feb 07
Posts: 1300
Credit: 3,022,622
RAC: 1,018
United Kingdom
Message 1149212 - Posted: 5 Sep 2011, 16:48:30 UTC - in response to Message 1149206.
Last modified: 5 Sep 2011, 16:48:51 UTC

Between the war years, there was the League of Nations which became as toothless as the UN is today....WWIII anyone?


Oh, be careful here Sirius! The worlds manufacturing industry order books are looking quite scant at the moment. Don't wont to give them any ideas as to how to boost profits by lobbying government into becoming war mongers (te-he)

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11973
Credit: 1,796,319
RAC: 590
Bermuda
Message 1149215 - Posted: 5 Sep 2011, 16:51:42 UTC

Now would I do a thing like that...

...damn, where did I put my SLR & Ammo?
____________

Profile Michael John Hind
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Feb 07
Posts: 1300
Credit: 3,022,622
RAC: 1,018
United Kingdom
Message 1149223 - Posted: 5 Sep 2011, 17:06:28 UTC - in response to Message 1149215.

Now would I do a thing like that...

...damn, where did I put my SLR & Ammo?



Profile Jim_SProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 00
Posts: 4534
Credit: 19,235,861
RAC: 9,996
United States
Message 1149224 - Posted: 5 Sep 2011, 17:06:51 UTC - in response to Message 1149177.

Well for one thing, I don't agree with massive amounts of compensation paid out to military personnel for the simple fact is this: -

An individual is not forced to join the services, it is their personal choice & on enlistment, they are aware that should a war erupt, then while still in the services are liable to serve in combat.

It's all good & well making a decent living from the services in peacetime but war comes....

Snip From your post to make a small point;
When many folks join the armed Services They
Do NOT READ the fine print.
If they did Most would Run Like HE11!
____________

I Desire Peace and Justice, Jim Scott (Mod-Ret.)

Profile Dr Imaginario
Send message
Joined: 10 Aug 11
Posts: 172
Credit: 22,735
RAC: 0
Portugal
Message 1149227 - Posted: 5 Sep 2011, 17:10:30 UTC

Funny, that at the end, no matter if you where at iwojima, okinawa, Berlin, dunquerque, korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, iraq or afganistan, the common guy, the one that holds the rifle, don't really care which president or queen or king is saying that he has to fight.
There is a moment in time when you are pulling the trigger, that you don't even think, your mind is blank, you try to remember your training, and to survive.
war is beautifull when you are behind a desk, Romantic when you read a nice novel, it's horror when you are in the middle of a fight, when you can't even see the enemy clearly, and you just listen to the rounds being fired and flying over your head.
At the end why we fight? good point, ask most of veterans, and some will just say because they had to.
No one reall know's what is a combat situation until you find yourself in to one.
then you can see the most noble in man as well the most horrible and dreadfull.
About the politicians? they don't have a clue, they don't give a crap. About the rest of the society, yes they are all against war,but at the end, who is not? specially when the battlefield is thousands of miles away from home, and they confy lives.

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11973
Credit: 1,796,319
RAC: 590
Bermuda
Message 1149228 - Posted: 5 Sep 2011, 17:10:36 UTC - in response to Message 1149224.

Well for one thing, I don't agree with massive amounts of compensation paid out to military personnel for the simple fact is this: -

An individual is not forced to join the services, it is their personal choice & on enlistment, they are aware that should a war erupt, then while still in the services are liable to serve in combat.

It's all good & well making a decent living from the services in peacetime but war comes....

Snip From your post to make a small point;
When many folks join the armed Services They
Do NOT READ the fine print.
If they did Most would Run Like HE11!


Not sure of the US Jim but here, you're wrong. Both in the past & current forces personnel, many of us went in with our eyes open & fully aware of the possible outcome if war erupted while our time still had to be served.

It's what makes a Professional Military...Professional

we had a police force that was also that professional with many members proud of their service...now we have politically correct police chiefs who are not fit to scrap the .... off a pig's ass let alone my shoes.....
____________

BarryAZ
Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 12,446,882
RAC: 3,269
United States
Message 1149236 - Posted: 5 Sep 2011, 17:18:56 UTC

I thought we fought to make the world safe for the very wealthy and safe FROM Democracy.
____________

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11973
Credit: 1,796,319
RAC: 590
Bermuda
Message 1149241 - Posted: 5 Sep 2011, 17:21:42 UTC - in response to Message 1149236.

I thought we fought to make the world safe for the very wealthy and safe FROM Democracy.


Nope, we fought to make them richer......
____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32636
Credit: 14,524,263
RAC: 14,109
United Kingdom
Message 1149260 - Posted: 5 Sep 2011, 17:52:33 UTC

There are many reasons why wars start and people fight. Look at the history of the causes of WW1 and WWII. The major conflict that I lived through was the Falklands one, and I still think we were right to go into that, despite the iffyness of the Belgrano incident. And no, war was not officially declared by either side.

Argentina may well think they have claims to the Malvinas, but as far as we were concerned, a foreign power had invaded British Sovereign Territory, and British subjects called upon their Mother Country for help. Not only were we duty bound to support them and liberate them, also if we had not done so, then we could have put at risk every other sovereign Territory around the world.

I think that Korea, Vietnam, and maybe Iraq, have cost America more dearly that it may admit, but as a non American I cannot really comment upon their conflicts.

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 6 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Why Fight?

Copyright © 2014 University of California