This is going to be my last post in this thread; we're getting no-where, and I'm not quite sure how to get through to someone who has no sense of irony, and rather than take any points on-board, simply repeats themselves over and over again.
It wasn't a compliment.
You assume wrongly. I'm quite certain that much of my own life is influenced by media and shaped by government agencies.
But yet despite the fact that's it's seen as almost heinous these days by the general public to oppose your Nations Armed Forces, you're still quite willing to openly post about how stupid we all are? Nice.
Participating in an online forum is a bad thing now, after all those things brave fighting men and women have done to give me that opportunity?
I'm not quite sure how you think the world we live in has come to be. If you think the world was suddenly created, and everyone had access to facebook, and only evil, stupid people were born in horrible places because they deserved it, well you have a lot to learn. The world we know has been shaped by millenia of violence. The reason you have the rights you do today, is because soldiers have fought for those rights. You were lucky to be born in the Nation you are, and this is a point I've been trying to get across in numerous posts now (and yet you still keep missing it...).
Not all Nations are united, most aren't. In these countries, rights to freedom of speech are forbidden. There isn't enough money for technology, like computers. Surprisingly enough, in countries where they're struggling for water, there aren't high-speed broadband cables laying in the desert.
If this isn't a clear enough picture for you yet...the reason you're able to sit there and call soldiers worthless on the internet, is because those soldiers have fought to protect the rights you have become accustomed to; the rights so many other people are denied. I'm not quite sure how to say this any clearer; if you're struggling to grasp this now, then to be quite honest I'm not sure how you even manage to muster up the common sense to get out of bed on a morning.
Make up your mind. Either you say having a story reported by some news organization and having it discussed online is political suicide, or it is completely irrelevant. Can't be both.
I never contradicted myself, I merely cited how useful a tool effective PR is. You keep mentioning the word 'politics', and really, the policies in place have little to do with how people see the Government of any country. What keeps the man in power is PR. If a president/PM has a particularly terrible run, then this will be used by their opponent in negative PR, so the two can be linked.
Also, no need to call me an idiot. You may disagree with me, obviously. Insulting is just bad manners.
Pot, meet kettle? Knowing full-well that I'm a soldier, you have gone on to insult everything I believe in and belittled the memories of people I have served beside who are no longer with us, along with some of the bravest people I know. Not only this, but you have offended generations of people who do something other with their lives than sit on the internet complaining about the world. These are the people who take action so that you don't have to. If soldiers didn't volunteer to fight, do you think your Government would simply abandon any plans for expansion it might have? Or do you think you would be forced to fight? Frankly, calling you an idiot was polite. I have far more words in my vocabulary that I'd normally use to describe you, but I was trying to keep this civil.
That is exactly my point. Soldiers invade some country, at home they are celebrated as heroes. Abroad they may be considered terrorists that wreaked havoc on an entire nation or region.
Finally, we're getting somewhere. This becomes entirely complicated when the Nation soldiers "invade" isn't united, as I mentioned before. More often than not, this Nation won't simply have two opposing sides, but several. As a coalition force, we can only support one of those sides, and generally it will be the side of the Government calling in UN support (such as Afghanistan).
To that end, if we "invade" a Nation to support one of those sides (the side voted for by the people - the Government), but 4 other sides are opposed to our involvement (largely because this stops them taking power by force), are we in the wrong for intervening? Should we, perhaps, just leave the rest of the world to it? What happens in 5 years time when a nuclear weapon is detonated in Berlin because the side we didn't stop is looking to expand their territory and ultimately gain more money?
We fight to a VERY strict set of rules; the Geneva Convention. Unfortunately, those we fight don't. These rules are often ridiculous in times of combat; we're not allowed to engage an enemy unless they first engage us. If an enemy drops their weapon and retreats, they're no longer a viable target, regardless of whether they've just killed the majority of your squad. Contrastingly, the enemy will detonate an IED, wait for the emergency services to arrive (usually civilians like the Red Cross), and then detonate larger secondaries.
We fight to these rules, because without them, we're no better than they are. As I've repeated over and over again, without soldiers, there would still be war. There just wouldn't be anybody to fight against them. There will always be people who fight for good, and others who fight for gain. Sometimes that line is blurred.
In Afghanistan, the progress is clear. The tribe responsible for overthrowing the Government in '96 and murdering civilians has now been forced largely into Pakistan and Yemen. The Afghan people are glad to be rid of the regime, and we're opening thousands of schools, as well as providing electrical power to the region. The ANA and ANP are on their way to becoming strong enough to repel the Taliban when it inevitably invades again.
How dare you assume I believe in such stuff?
I didn't. Stop getting pissy about little things while ignoring the bigger picture. I couldn't care less whether you believed in God, a giant Octopus with Barbara Streisands face, or aliens. What I do care about, is your perception of people who sacrifice themselves in your name. I don't care whether you respect me, but it saddens me to think you're potentially spitting in the face of your ancestors because you don't know any better.
I don't agree with German forces fighting a non-defensive war. Additionally, it violates our constitution. The politicians just avoided calling it like it is when sending the troops to avoid the legal kerfuffle.
Politicians lie? Say it ain't so!
You committed forces to the UN to clean up a mess caused by the US. Tomato Tomahto.
Wrong. The British have had direct military involvement in Afghanistan for over a century. There have been various times where we have pulled out, but soon gone back in again. Afghanistan was/is a major trading route through Asia, and is strategically very important. Whoever controls it, controls the trade route, not to mention the Opium fields (over 90% of the WORLDS heroin trade can be sourced from Afghanistan). With someone like the Taliban in charge, where do you think this money would go? New Schools? Internet access for everyone who hates soldiers? Or weapons? Given the rest of the world, and the Taliban history, it's a fair assumption to say that civilians would generally either be conscripted by force, or killed.
The war has very much to do with the US agenda, for example on September 10th 2001 the US planned to "seek to overthrow the Taliban regime through more direct action" if political pressure failed. To me, that sounds like a plan for a war of aggression.
Indeed it did, by trying to force a UN policy through which ultimately failed. Sensing the danger of not getting directly involved and the consequences this would have, we all went in anyway. You see, the Taliban don't refuse to slit the throat of an innocent woman just because the UN have written a letter asking them politely not to do it.
My point is, on a political level soldiers are the pawns of the leaders - scroll back a few posts, I wrote that at least once before. Depending on your point of view soldiers are used for good or for bad. Political pawns.
And my point is, there is no "political level", only life. If you look at Vietnam on a political level, the US killed 980'000+ NVA soldiers while losing "only" 54'000 of their own, surely that's an astounding victory?
Apparently I'm not the only 24-year-old in this thread with na?vety and ignorance - else you would open your eyes to the reality of politics.
The reality of politics is (and I'm sure I've said this OVER and OVER again!) the world revolves around a handful of very powerful men. We all live under the veil of democracy, but in reality we're all under control, just as we have been for thousands of years. For us, this control is somewhat relaxed, and we have a very high standard of living. I love nothing better than going out taking photos, or driving my car out in the country on a nice day with my fiancee. However, there are a lot of places in this world that, by the age of 24, I would either be fighting for survival, or I'd be dead. Whether that was through some terrible regime, epidemic illness, or shortage of food and water.
Whether you like to admit it or not, your Nations history in conflict and warfare has allowed you this standard of living, and the same goes for every Nation on the planet. Your geographical location plays some part, but had another Nation found it strategic, they would have invaded you and forced your ancestors elsewhere, meaning YOU would have been born elsewhere.
The point you seem to consistently miss, is that without soldiers, what happens? When does a group of men become a gang? When does a group of gangs become an army? When does a man become a soldier?
So, as I've said before; if we suddenly dismiss all our Armed Forces, where does that leave us? Do you honestly think that the world will suddenly fall into harmony? Or do you think it will fall into anarchy?
There will always be men who take what they want through fear and violence. There will always be men willing to fight against them to protect those who can't protect themselves. I don't just attribute thise lifestyle to soldiers, but to care-workers, nurses, emergency services; people who sacrifice large proportions of their own lives to help others.
One of my favourite quotes aptly sums my stance on this up:
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." - Winston Churchill
And another I found:
"There are evil people in this world who will do violence upon you and your family without a second thought. Those who accept that can prepare for it. Those who deny it will always call for help from "rough men" at the moment of truth." -Anon.
Frankly, whether you support me or not makes no difference. I'm VERY proud to call myself one of those "rough men", and to serve alongside some of the greatest people I'm ever likely to know.