N.I and British Troops, or a ball game, or Iraq

Tricity Bendix

Ibid wrote:

It still goes on. Not only was I offered the opportunity to applaud members and veterans of the US Armed Forces (Call 1800-YOUNG-DEATH to be "Army Strong") but also applaud equivalent members of the United Kingdom and "all our other allies". Yeah, I'm going to applaud a guy stationed in Derry :rolleyes:. And three cheers for Agent Orange while we're at it.

My girlfriend still doesn't see anything particularly wrong with it. Maybe if I prefix "hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis" with "Oh my God" she might get it.

Well, considering the British army operation in Northern Ireland has ended, meaning Northern Ireland now has no more British troops stationed there than any other part of the UK, I would have absolutely no problem applauding a guy stationed in Derry.

I fail to see the connection between hundreds and thousands of dead iraqis and a ball game. If Iraqis wanted to honor their dead security forces and those that have died due to the sectarian and terrorist violence, I would be perfectly happy. Many people (including myself) might be angered and frustrated by the political and strategical aspects of the fighting in Iraq, but it seems silly to take out our frustrations on the poor misfortunates who are stationed there. We're talking about men and women who have had reason to show courage in ways that you and I can never imagine. Its not their fault Iraq was invaded in the first place. Nor is it their fault that only small areas of Baghdad and Basra can be protected, allowing foreign terrorists and Iraqi militia to kill innocent civilians.

So while I'm sure you're very proud of your attempt to poke Uncle Sam in the eye and stand up for the little people in Iraq, your protest is not ony futile, it is misdirected.

Time Magazine

b.ie polar wrote:

Well, considering the British army operation in Northern Ireland has ended, meaning Northern Ireland now has no more British troops stationed there than any other part of the UK, I would have absolutely no problem applauding a guy stationed in Derry.

You know that I'm no stupid Shinner, but why was the helicopter so low it clipped a fence beside a housing estate? Sure there's a base there, but ask anyone who lives up there and they'll testify the soldiers do it to antagonize.

And we were applauding veterans, not just current members.

it seems silly to take out our frustrations on the poor misfortunates who are stationed there.

I didn't take out the frustrations on them, I just failed to applaud them. I also spent the weekend with my relatives 50 miles north. The man of the house served back in the day. He thinks it's ridiculous to applaud the men like that - he can't see a connection between a ball-game/SeaWorld and the war just like you can't. Furthermore, he thinks true patriots should applaud when they come back home, not while they're out there. He sees this applause as synonymous with the "Pro-War = Pro-America" feeling that exists today.

So while I'm sure you're very proud of your attempt to poke Uncle Sam in the eye and stand up for the little people in Iraq, your protest is not ony futile, it is misdirected.

I'm not very proud of it, I found it hilarious that the Americans were so misdirected in their support for the troops. True support for the troops would be a march to bring them home.

In woo-hoo terms: I ate steak last night and sausages this morning. Now I'm home, it's 38 degrees outside. In another woo-hoo I have to pay rent, but since I'm leaving on the 5th, my rent is only $60 \o/.

Barry Aldwell

Ibid wrote:

You know that I'm no stupid Shinner, but why was the helicopter so low it clipped a fence beside a housing estate? Sure there's a base there, but ask anyone who lives up there and they'll testify the soldiers do it to antagonize.

British Army helicopters over Northern Ireland fly a bit on the low side because if they fly any higher they become vulnerable to fire from shoulder launched surface to air missiles, which the various elements of the IRA did have, and quite possibly still continue to have (they may have discontinued this practise with the end of OP BANNER, I'm not sure). Tactically flying a helicopter is a much greater strain on the pilot, and uses a lot more fuel, than normal flight. They wouldn't do it unless they had to. The suggestion that they fly low level just to piss off the locals is stupid - before the end of OP BANNER they had much, much better ways to piss off the locals if they so wanted (at the RUC/PSNI's pleasure, of course, as the British Army were there to support them).

It's usually a good idea to seperate the ideas of supporting the troops, and supporting whatever crusade the government of the day sends them on. Generally the latter tends to ask the military to do their absolute maximum with an absolute minimum of money, equipment and support. This often leads to soldiers being sent into harms way without proper equipment, or in insufficient numbers to complete their mission. If the general public support the troops then every time a man comes home in a coffin because the government wouldn't shell out the money for proper body armour/a decent rifle etc, the government loses votes. Thus meaning that the government will (hopefully) minimise the number of outrageous demands it makes of the military.

On the other hand, when the general populace don't support the troops, people coming home in coffins don't really matter to them, and are seen as fools who got what they deserved (as seen by Ibid's "1800-YOUNG-DEATH" remarks, which I thought were in quite poor taste), thus allowing the government to send the troops anywhere they want, without any fear of bad publicity.

Time Magazine

Barry Aldwell wrote:

They wouldn't do it unless they had to. The suggestion that they fly low level just to piss off the locals is stupid - before the end of OP BANNER they had much, much better ways to piss off the locals if they so wanted (at the RUC/PSNI's pleasure, of course, as the British Army were there to support them).

I'll take your word on that military man; but you speak of before the end of operations in the same sentence? Nonetheless a lot of the people on the ground up there haven't a lot of respect for their continued behaviour.

It's usually a good idea to seperate the ideas of supporting the troops, and supporting whatever crusade the government of the day sends them on.

Completely agree.

Generally the latter tends to ask the military to do their absolute maximum with an absolute minimum of money, equipment and support. This often leads to soldiers being sent into harms way without proper equipment, or in insufficient numbers to complete their mission.

Unfortunately this is precisely what happened in Iraq. Paul Wolfowitz, a mathematician who who was partly-responsible for the planning of the invasion, said it was "hard to conceive" many troops being needed after the preliminary invasion. What's happening is not support for the troops, which as I said would be not sending them on a stupid war, but support for Bush's war and the mis-conception that that is what the American flag represents.

If the general public support the troops then every time a man comes home in a coffin because the government wouldn't shell out the money for proper body armour/a decent rifle etc, the government loses votes. Thus meaning that the government will (hopefully) minimise the number of outrageous demands it makes of the military.

But this just is not the case. The ridiculous interventionist realpolitik (moreso than Bush it must be said) still holds much support - even after the joke that Iraq has become, the Democrats only managed 52% of the vote in the House elections last year. My point, perhaps not well pointed out initially, was that it seems Americans do not differentiate support for the troops and invading Iraq.

On the other hand, when the general populace don't support the troops, people coming home in coffins don't really matter to them, and are seen as fools who got what they deserved (as seen by Ibid's "1800-YOUNG-DEATH" remarks, which I thought were in quite poor taste), thus allowing the government to send the troops anywhere they want, without any fear of bad publicity.

Firstly I don't think the people deserve to die. In fact this is exactly my point, nobody had to die. And incidentally, for each American dead there's at least 100 dead Iraqis. The 1800 joke was in reference to the ad which portrayed joining the force as a fine adventure, when in fact you're going to be sent to a hell-zone for no good reason.

The actual reality of the situation shows your point to be false. The Americans think they're "supporting the troops" by waving their banners but only a few percent stop voting GOP when the military invasion is such a fuck up thousands of Americans die. There's also an abyss of "supporting the Iraqis", in whose name this war was waged. I've only heard veterans bemoaning the death toll of Iraqis. The Iraqi/American death ratio currently stands at five times that of Vietnam. Something's wrong by cheering this war on, which is what they're doing, not saying "Now let's bring our brave boys home."

Tricity Bendix

Ibid wrote:

I didn't take out the frustrations on them, I just failed to applaud them. I also spent the weekend with my relatives 50 miles north. The man of the house served back in the day. He thinks it's ridiculous to applaud the men like that - he can't see a connection between a ball-game/SeaWorld and the war just like you can't. Furthermore, he thinks true patriots should applaud when they come back home, not while they're out there. He sees this applause as synonymous with the "Pro-War = Pro-America" feeling that exists today.

Actually, I can see a connection. A ball game is a perfect place to show support for the troops. Baseball is an all-American pastime. The games are attended by all classes and creeds. If you wanted to show vocal public support, I don't know if you could get a much better venue or occasion.

As for what a 'true patriot' should do, I would have to disagree. As I've already said, I don't like the war in Iraq, but these soldiers need and deserve support at all times, not just when it politically convenient. I would view the applause as pro-soldiers = pro-America. A friend of mine who actually served in the war happens to feel betrayed by those who "planned" and executed the invasion, and gets livid when he discusses the conditions soldiers have to work in. But his apartment is still covered in posters and flags honoring the tremendous commitment of the troops

True support for the troops would be a march to bring them home.

And perhaps that will happen one day. But right at this very moment, American troops are fighting an unwinable battle in the harshest environment, and I'm pretty sure it would give them some solace to know that there are folks back home who admire their courage and who are thinking of them.

The actual reality of the situation shows your point to be false. The Americans think they're "supporting the troops" by waving their banners but only a few percent stop voting GOP when the military invasion is such a **** up thousands of Americans die.

You really need to divorce supporting the Republicans from supporting the army

Time Magazine

b.ie polar wrote:

Actually, I can see a connection. A ball game is a perfect place to show support for the troops. Baseball is an all-American pastime. The games are attended by all classes and creeds. If you wanted to show vocal public support, I don't know if you could get a much better venue or occasion.

It was in SeaWorld.

As for what a 'true patriot' should do, I would have to disagree. As I've already said, I don't like the war in Iraq, but these soldiers need and deserve support at all times, not just when it politically convenient. I would view the applause as pro-soldiers = pro-America. A friend of mine who actually served in the war happens to feel betrayed by those who "planned" and executed the invasion, and gets livid when he discusses the conditions soldiers have to work in. But his apartment is still covered in posters and flags honoring the tremendous commitment of the troops

And a colleague of my girlfriend's who served thinks it's absolutely ridiculous this support for troops is not backed up by marches to bring them home. Much like the overwhelming majority of serving soldiers who believe they should have already been pulled out.

And perhaps that will happen one day. But right at this very moment, American troops are fighting an unwinable battle in the harshest environment, and I'm pretty sure it would give them some solace to know that there are folks back home who admire their courage and who are thinking of them.

I'm sure that's true. And I'm sure, given their views, they'd appreciate a march to pull their home rather than a generic cheer.

You really need to divorce supporting the Republicans from supporting the army

I don't. I feel the whale trainers at SeaWorld need to distinguish supporting the troops and backing any invasion no matter what.

Boston

Ibid = RA head.

Tricity Bendix

Ibid wrote:

It was in SeaWorld.

Still a large gathering of people.

And a colleague of my girlfriend's who served thinks it's absolutely ridiculous this support for troops is not backed up by marches to bring them home. Much like the overwhelming majority of serving soldiers who believe they should have already been pulled out.

Fair enough. Maybe there should be marches. That isn't the issue. The issue at hand is whether or not it is inappropriate to applaude the efforts of the armed services at SeaWorld.

I'm sure that's true. And I'm sure, given their views, they'd appreciate a march to pull their home rather than a generic cheer.

Given their views? Soldiers, much like the rest of America, are divided in their opinions on the war. Fortunately, whether they want to be there or not is not the deciding factor when it comes to initiating military action. The fact of the matter is that they are there right now, on a decision made by a legitimate and representative government, and there is an insufficient mandate for their withdrawl. So they are going to be there for another while. Now, you can either applaude these soldiers at any given opportunity in order to show your appreciation/solidarity, or you can ignore them. Whether or not you march to bring them home is a political issue, and an issue that is likely to divide people. Hence why its not such a good idea to call for troops to pulled out of Iraq at a ball game. A simple message of general "support" shouldn't cause offense to anyone.

I don't. I feel the whale trainers at SeaWorld need to distinguish supporting the troops and backing any invasion no matter what.

Backing an invasion is not the same as supporting the troops.

Moorsy

Emm is this a joke? TCD Boards, an arguement between two people about N.I and British Troops, or a ball game, or Iraq, or somebody being accused of being a 'ra head'?

I'm sure there's a N.I. section or War section or maybe even a 'ra' section.

europerson

Whilst I have no idea what happened here in the two days I was away from Boards, I am highly entertained.

Boston

lolercakes.

*Ibid sends the boys around to knee cap boston, as he knows too much.

ApeXaviour

Moorsy wrote:

Emm is this a joke? TCD Boards, an arguement between two people about N.I and British Troops, or a ball game, or Iraq, or somebody being accused of being a 'ra head'?

I'm sure there's a N.I. section or War section or maybe even a 'ra' section.

I split this from some other thread due to its off-topicness. I'm not much one for originality so I just used boston's comment as title. *snickers

Moorsy

That’s strange, last time I had an argument on this board which involved China and Google you moved it to 'The Thunderdome' (SYS) which is an insult board. Nice. Strange how you thought an argument about the IRA or Iraq or A Ball game is now relevant when China and Google weren't.....

ApeXaviour

Hmm... you're right. But Thunderdome was a bad choice in that case. In lieu of any other forums coming I guess I'll just lock this one. It's lived past its prime I believe.

Crash

Moorsy wrote:

That’s strange, last time I had an argument on this board which involved China and Google you moved it to 'The Thunderdome' (SYS) which is an insult board. Nice. Strange how you thought an argument about the IRA or Iraq or A Ball game is now relevant when China and Google weren't.....

Eoin stop being argumentative for the sake of it