Clarkson & Hammond at the 2008 Millie Awards

[freefall]

Don't you know that everyone on the internet over the age of 12 was recruited straight into the SAS because they're so badass?

You didn't answer my question and gave me -rep (supposedly). So let's start again. Have you served in the army? Although I guess I know the answer already.

 

[GraemeH]

Right. Rewarding people for participating in a war you don't believe in is a good thing.

Yeah, beacause soldiers are asked whether they'd like to fight in a war or sit it out and wait for one they agree with, right?

What?

 

[tuesday]

I apologize for not signing the -rep, freefall. I didn't know they could be anonymous.

Whether I am ex military or not is no more relevant to the discussion than if I were to qualify you by asking how many people you've killed. Either would be an attempt to attack the person, not the argument.

 

[tuesday]

Yeah, beacause soldiers are asked whether they'd like to fight in a war or sit it out and wait for one they agree with, right?

What?

So they didn't volunteer to join the military, then?

 

[skylock]

They're a volunteer force and their job is killing people, helping people kill people, and dying at the behest of politicians so it's impossible to take the politics out of it and similarly impossible not to hold them responsible for their actions.

And they're not acting like a defensive force. They're overseas killing people who are resisting the invasion of their own country. The defensive force is the one they're attacking.

Apparently you have been paying to close of attention to a biased media.

Maybe you should pull a few months "over there" then come back when you know what you are talking about.

 

[tuesday]

Sweetie, you're in dire need of an education I'm not motivated enough to provide.

Thanks, guys. I'm done. It was fun while it lasted.

 

[freefall]

I apologize for not signing the -rep, freefall. I didn't know they could be anonymous.

Yeah, they're always anonymous here, unless you leave a signature in the message itself. Anyway, no offence taken

Whether I am ex military or not is no more relevant to the discussion than if I were to qualify you by asking how many people you've killed.

Well actually, despite you referring to argumentum ad hominem, it IS relevant, at least that's what my life experience tells me. Having done some service, one understands how the whole thing works, what a soldier has to endure, what commitment and devotion are worth.

Make no mistake, I am not pro-army or pro-war in general (please read further) as long as there's no need for violence. In the current state of development of our civilization and societies, army is an absolutely necessary institution. And the way it functions (including all the regulations) had been developing for many centuries, learning from the experiences of many brave men, most of whom sacrificed their lives prematurely.

If you are a British citizen and disagree with the policy of your government, it is your duty to make an effort to change that, so that whenever a soldier has to fight, it is never a shameful war.

 

[freefall]

Sweetie, you're in dire need of an education I'm not motivated enough to provide.

Thanks, guys. I'm done. It was fun while it lasted.

No, don't quit. It's not over yet. Quite a few people are sharing their thoughts and experiences, trying to make you understand where your opinion might be wrong. Don't be arrogant. If you have something to explain, please do.

It looks like you're pretty certain that all the 45000+ troops in Iraq and another 10000+ in Afghanistan have explicitly volunteered to be sent to those regions, had an opportunity to decline (that's another matter entirely, worth another 10 threads) and agreed to go there sort of "for fun". Where did you get that information from, may I ask?

 

[jmsprovan]

i'm just dissapointed it was hosted by The Sun, all they do in that paper is bitch about the government and/or the military and preach that the immigrants will be the end of the white majority in the uk, gah i detect bullshit.

I'm in no way opposed to awarding our armed services but ffs calling it the "millies" makes it sound like some sort of joke.

 

[Backdraft]

tuesday seems to be living in his/her own fantasy world where the world is a pretty rainbow with unicorns and marshmellows, and soldiers are hardcore baby-killers with five-o-clock shadows and machetes for hands. Where did you crawl out of, Woodstock 1969?

Whether you agree with it or not, the people in the military are out there protecting your right to sit on your ass and type these stupid, naive comments on an internet forum like this. At least have the decency to recognize what they are doing for you, your friends (if you even have any), your family, and your country.

You might want to take a look at this article or read the book "On Killing" by David Grossman, and see which archetype you fit into.

 

[tuesday]

I hate when someone makes a point it'd be interesting to respond to after I've said I've pulled out of a discussion. Replying makes me seem like a hypocrite.

No, don't quit. It's not over yet. Quite a few people are sharing their thoughts and experiences, trying to make you understand where your opinion might be wrong. Don't be arrogant. If you have something to explain, please do.

It looks like you're pretty certain that all the 45000+ troops in Iraq and another 10000+ in Afghanistan have explicitly volunteered to be sent to those regions, had an opportunity to decline (that's another matter entirely, worth another 10 threads) and agreed to go there sort of "for fun". Where did you get that information from, may I ask?

If people aren't interested in why they might be wrong, I'm not interested in explaining why they are, or interested in listening to them rail against me. I'm not interested in changing people's minds, only in having a discussion. If they're just going to pretend that my arguments are meaningless because of who I am or am not, or even because they don't like the fact that I disagree with what they believe, I'm not going to bother.

As for being "arrogant," to change my mind all it would take is to show me that the dominant nations don't use their militaries to bully other nations, don't supply those nations' enemies with arms, or even don't supply both sides in wars. Show me that the best way to help people is to go abroad and kill hundreds or thousands of them at the taxpayer's expense in the process. Show me that it's okay to reward this kind of behavior and teach kids to sacrifice their lives for baubles and chintzy adulations of politicians and minor celebrities. And show me that violence doesn't encourage people to seek retribution.

As for the military not being voluntary, sure, once they join they follow orders or they're put in prison or, depending on the circumstances, shot. But joining is still optional most places, including Britain if I'm not mistaken. And while enlistees get conned with words like "honor" and "patriotism" and "freedom" and "duty" to join the military, the first thing they get taught is how to obey orders and handle a weapon so that they can be sent to war to kill and die as a politician sees fit. And that's not exactly a secret.

I don't have contempt for soldiers. I have pity for them. But just because they've been conned into doing what they've done doesn't make them any less responsible for their actions. And it certainly shouldn't be rewarded or praised. You reward behavior you want to continue and not behavior you don't.

If someone wants to show they believe a war is wrong, they probably shouldn't stand on a dais and hand out awards for killing people, helping people kill people, or dying.

Well actually, despite you referring to argumentum ad hominem, it IS relevant, at least that's what my life experience tells me. Having done some service, one understands how the whole thing works, what a soldier has to endure, what commitment and devotion are worth.

Make no mistake, I am not pro-army or pro-war in general (please read further) as long as there's no need for violence. In the current state of development of our civilization and societies, army is an absolutely necessary institution. And the way it functions (including all the regulations) had been developing for many centuries, learning from the experiences of many brave men, most of whom sacrificed their lives prematurely.

If you are a British citizen and disagree with the policy of your government, it is your duty to make an effort to change that, so that whenever a soldier has to fight, it is never a shameful war.

Your statement is laden with a number of dubious assumptions. It assumes that it takes being a soldier to know what devotion and commitment are and that the devotion and commitment shown by the military is to the right cause (i.e. the military). It assumes that the military was built up to assuage the needs of society and acts for the good of society. It assumes that it is possible and necessary to work within the system to change things. And it assumes that there is such a thing as a just war.

 

[tuesday]

tuesday seems to be living in his/her own fantasy world where the world is a pretty rainbow with unicorns and marshmellows, and soldiers are hardcore baby-killers with five-o-clock shadows and machetes for hands. Where did you crawl out of, Woodstock 1969?

Whether you agree with it or not, the people in the military are out there protecting your right to sit on your ass and type these stupid, naive comments on an internet forum like this. At least have the decency to recognize what they are doing for you, your friends (if you even have any), your family, and your country.

You might want to take a look at this article or read the book "On Killing" by David Grossman, and see which archetype you fit into.

I've read Col. Grossman's "On Killing" and "On Combat" as well. What I've gleaned from them is that it takes lies and manipulation and being forced into impossibly dangerous situations to get all but a tiny select few to kill on the word of others. And even when it happens it's incredibly psychologically damaging. What Grossman glosses over is that this is necessarily true for the enemy as well.

The rest is covered by the old adage about how to start a bar fight. You don't just go up and start pounding on someone, you get in a whole lot of peoples faces until someone starts swinging at you.

As for that article, it ignores the fact that sheepdogs protect the sheep from wolves so that the shepherd may fleece or eat them at his leisure. War is, as the quote goes, the health of the state. The more trouble the state can stir up abroad with the military, the more it can justify taking money from the people to fund further excursions. And the more money the state has, the more powerful it is.

 

[brydie76]

i agree with some of your points and I also disagree with a few, but is this really the place to raise such an issue?
On topic, good on them for contributing to the recognition of those who are doing a public service, irregardless of what it is.

I think this topic is now a good candidate to be locked...

 

[tuesday]

good on them for contributing to the recognition of those who are doing a public service, irregardless of what it is.

That's a dangerous sentiment. What if something is said to be a "public service" but is in fact a public hindrance? Should it still be rewarded? What if it is in fact brutal and horrible and harmful to society but is still called a "public service"? Should rewards still be forthcoming?

Stalin had an estimated 80 million of his own citizens killed in order to bring about a worker's paradise in the name of "public service." Should he be rewarded as well? I'm not comparing soldiers to Stalin, just wondering how many people have to die before its no longer "public service" that should be rewarded.

 

[brydie76]

That's a dangerous sentiment. What if something is said to be a "public service" but is in fact a public hindrance? Should it still be rewarded? What if it is in fact brutal and horrible and harmful to society but is still called a "public service"? Should rewards still be forthcoming?

Stalin had an estimated 80 million of his own citizens killed in order to bring about a worker's paradise in the name of "public service." Should he be rewarded as well? I'm not comparing soldiers to Stalin, just wondering how many innocents have to die before its no longer "public service" that should be rewarded.

I don't think my statement is "dangerous", so to speak, more "badly worded" (as the rest of this will be due to various factors):

I do consider some parts of the soldier's duty a public service, some I don't (one of which is the killing of innocent people).

I consider some parts to be so because (example) if Australia was being irrationally invaded (which I do agree is what the majority of the western world did to Iraq) by another nation with a vendetta, I would want the Army, Navy, Air Force and whatever else to stand up and defend the nation, and I would consider that to be a public service.

At the moment, we (Australia) have police shooting people left, right and centre, but what they are doing is still considered and even called a "public service"- something I disagree with greatly.

And I know bugger all about Stalin thanks to Australia's horrible school history cirriculum, but thankyou for that piece of knowledge, I didn't know and will consider that now.

I'm too tired to debate stuff very well, sorry

 

[alihaig]

I was going to reply to this but everybody else on here has pretty much said everything I can think to say and you still insist on your fairytale, head-in-the-sand idiocy. All I would say is you have taken a group of essentially random people from all over the world, with no ties to each other other than being fans of 1 TV show, and not one person has stood up to agree with you, and however many it is (at least 10 or so) who have replied have varied from disagreeing with you to actually feeling quite personally offended. Maybe you should reflect on where your view sits with that of the general population, and who it is that has been "conned".

I think this topic is now a good candidate to be locked...

 

[freefall]

I hate when someone makes a point it'd be interesting to respond to after I've said I've pulled out of a discussion. Replying makes me seem like a hypocrite.

I've always felt that "pulling out" on internet forums is a bit of a show. You either ignore what people say if you feel it's irrelevant, or post. Anyway, if you feel that your point is worth proving, it shouldn't be of any concern what you might seem to others. Or so I thought.

If people aren't interested in why they might be wrong, I'm not interested in explaining why they are, or interested in listening to them rail against me. I'm not interested in changing people's minds, only in having a discussion.

What's the point of having a discussion if you're
a) not ready to change your point of view
b) not interested in explaining it to other people?

I'm listening to what you're saying, but your arguments contradict my experience so far.

If they're just going to pretend that my arguments are meaningless because of who I am or am not, or even because they don't like the fact that I disagree with what they believe, I'm not going to bother.

Not bothering is not the way things are done in life. Sure, there is a case of "someone's wrong on the internets", but let's not make world black and white.

As for being "arrogant," to change my mind all it would take is to show me that the dominant nations don't use their militaries to bully other nations, don't supply those nations' enemies with arms, or even don't supply both sides in wars.

They do. They do. They do. Never denied that. Do you know where do the orders come from? Which people exactly are responsible?

Show me that the best way to help people is to go abroad and kill hundreds or thousands of them at the taxpayer's expense in the process.

It isn't. Never said that.

Show me that it's okay to reward this kind of behavior and teach kids to sacrifice their lives for baubles and chintzy adulations of politicians and minor celebrities. And show me that violence doesn't encourage people to seek retribution.

This kind of behaviour isn't rewarded. They're not giving the medals to Blair.
What is rewarded is the ultimate devotion. Getting your best mate out of a burning vehicle under heavy fire. Being under constant risk of being captured, tortured and killed daily, so that their mates won't be. Knowing that they will do the same for you any day.

You have to realise that life isn't all honey and pies, and some decisions can't just be ignored. What do you suggest? All the troops decline to carry out the orders? You're blaming the wrong people, you have to understand.

As for the military not being voluntary, sure, once they join they follow orders or they're put in prison or, depending on the circumstances, shot. But joining is still optional most places, including Britain if I'm not mistaken.

What do you suggest, not to join for a year or two? :?

And while enlistees get conned with words like "honor" and "patriotism" and "freedom" and "duty" to join the military, the first thing they get taught is how to obey orders and handle a weapon so that they can be sent to war to kill and die as a politician sees fit. And that's not exactly a secret.

It's not my intention to insult you, but you sound like you don't quite grasp the idea of how the world works. That's the purpose of the army.

I don't have contempt for soldiers. I have pity for them.

Oh, don't have pity for them. The reason why I asked you about serving with the military is that your views are a bit one-sided. War makes men men. There are dark sides to it, and there are bright sides to it. From some perspectives, one gains a lot. I'm not sure if this means anything to you.

But just because they've been conned into doing what they've done doesn't make them any less responsible for their actions. And it certainly shouldn't be rewarded or praised. You reward behavior you want to continue and not behavior you don't.

You mix two things into one.

There are soldiers, who take heroic actions and risk their lives. Just think about it. It means that they can be dead any second. Dead forever. And some of them value lives of others more than their own. And they shall be awarded for that, for they are heroes.

Then there are politicians who manipulate opinions and abuse their power to make these faithful and bound-by-oath men fight where they shouldn't be fighting.

Please draw a line between those two things.

 

[kurthest]

I find it quite funny to see how some people have been conned into thinking the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is fighting for "our freedom".

However, recognizing the effort and sacrifice put into the military service by the men and women doing the dirty work of the politicians should be a no-brainer, as many have said.
They do infact put their lives on the line serving their country, and by all means deserve the recognition.

 

[Rumer]

I find it quite funny to see how some people have been conned into thinking the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is fighting for "our freedom".

However, recognizing the effort and sacrifice put into the military service by the men and women doing the dirty work of the politicians should be a no-brainer, as many have said.
They do infact put their lives on the line serving their country, and by all means deserve the recognition.

People who join their country's military do so because because they wish to serve their country, not someone's personal agenda, so why should they bear the brunt of the insults?

 

[acabinian]

I find it quite funny to see how some people have been conned into thinking the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is fighting for "our freedom".

However, recognizing the effort and sacrifice put into the military service by the men and women doing the dirty work of the politicians should be a no-brainer, as many have said.
They do infact put their lives on the line serving their country, and by all means deserve the recognition.

Agreed 100%.

I believe, like Tuesday, that some of the reasons these wars are being fought are completely wrong. I feel ashamed that the U.S. has willingly put itself in the position it's in right now by fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and others. I only hope we as a country realize the road we're going down and reverse course as quickly as possible.

But, the troops are compelled to fight for their country and willingly give up their civilian lives to do so. For this, troops should be recognized as kurthest has said.