Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

the culture of military obsession

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    gbee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,388 ✭✭✭gbee


    Topper Harley wrote: »
    and hoping to get a third level education out of it.

    NO, If they went into the army after school, that is were their education ends.

    One must apply for the cadets, get assessed and selected for school leavers, or post leaving cert students ~ otherwise the offers are all initially for graduates.


  • Options
    #33
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    While I understand that some military personnel earn respect I dont get why they are lionised to the extent they are.


  • Options
    #34
    Leftist
    Registered Users Posts: 2,230 ✭✭✭Leftist


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    While I understand that some military personnel earn respect I dont get why they are lionised to the extent they are.

    indeed. I saw one picture on reddit a while ago where a soldier had stood infront of a vehicle, saluting and blocking it's path because the driver (unrelated) didn't want to take part in the procession.

    imo, it's gone beyond supporting the troops. it's almost become a requirement to idolise the soldiers.

    I know intelligent people in america who were posting cringe facebook status last night, such as 'they are fighting for our freedom'.

    Really? they are warped.


  • Options
    #35
    MikeMichael
    Site Banned Posts: 42 ✭MikeMichael


    The scary thing is that Reddit is full of soldier pictures and it has a very liberal US audience.

    I take every opportunity to take the piss out of their soldiers if I can.


  • Options
    #36
    gbee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,388 ✭✭✭gbee


    Leftist wrote: »
    imo, it's gone beyond supporting the troops. it's almost become a requirement to idolise the soldiers.

    No, TBH, it's calmed down a lot. Our modern world starts with the Romans, these guys venerated the soldier to death. In older times we have the Greek and Iranian campaigns which are probably still venerated today.

    In fact so much and in such high esteem were soldiers thought of, whole religions with 'fighting' monk monasteries were formed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    goose2005
    Registered Users Posts: 4,798 ✭✭✭goose2005


    Topper Harley wrote: »
    This is probably somewhat true but a lot of people will make a distinction that they support the troops but not the war.

    But isn't that a bit odd? "I oppose the suppression of protest, but I support the police who baton-charge protesters."


  • Options
    #38
    bluecode
    Closed Accounts Posts: 794 ✭✭✭bluecode


    goose2005 wrote: »
    But isn't that a bit odd? "I oppose the suppression of protest, but I support the police who baton-charge protesters."
    That's a completely invalid comparision.


  • Options
    #39
    moose_shooter
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5 ✭moose_shooter


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    While I understand that some military personnel earn respect I dont get why they are lionised to the extent they are.


    i dont understand why guards are lionised to the extent they are but there you go


  • Options
    #40
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Leftist wrote: »

    no doubt it is brave but so is going into a tough pub and starting a fight with 3 lads. Doesn't mean it's the right thing to do though.

    .

    No, but if you look at someone like Johnson Beharry, he put his own life in danger and was seriously wounded whilst saving his comrades lives.

    Whilst the reason he was there may ne controversial, what he did (twice) was exceptionally brave.


  • Options
    #41
    Rented Mule
    Registered Users Posts: 5,153 ✭✭✭Rented Mule


    spank_inferno wrote: »
    The 2003 Iraq invasion divided the US.

    To detour from this we saw the arrival of the "support our troops" bumper stickers everywhere.

    All of a sudden, questioning the merit of that crazy war meant you were against the men & women in Iraq.
    Which of course is a big No-No.

    Developing this cult of the military. such that everyone who laces up their boots no matter how far away they are from combat is a "Hero" allows the government to get away with a hell of a lot.


    This actually came in the lead up to Desert Storm back in '90/91. The reason being was during the '80s you had the apologies going out to the Viet Nam veterans who were spat upon when returning from overseas. The rationale was that you could be anti-war and not be anti-warrior.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    MikeMichael
    Site Banned Posts: 42 ✭MikeMichael


    But those "warriors" are pro war themselves (they signed up to fight for money) and are the instruments of war. Spitting on them is fair enough when you consider what they got up to.


  • Options
    #43
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    MikeMichael wrote: »
    But those "warriors" are pro war themselves (they signed up to fight for money) and are the instruments of war. Spitting on them is fair enough when you consider what they got up to.

    So who protects the UNHCR camps then?

    Who stands in front of a genocidal militia and prevents them killing everyone in sight?

    Who

    The world needs soldiers with the guts to join up and put themselves in harms way to protect others. That is a fact of life.


  • Options
    #44
    Local-womanizer
    Registered Users Posts: 3,798 ✭✭✭Local-womanizer


    MikeMichael wrote: »
    But those "warriors" are pro war themselves (they signed up to fight for money) and are the instruments of war. Spitting on them is fair enough when you consider what they got up to.

    Em, what exactly did they all get up too?

    They sign up to do a job, so what if they get paid for it. A lot of people wouldn't and/or couldn't do what a soldier does tbf.


  • Options
    #45
    MikeMichael
    Site Banned Posts: 42 ✭MikeMichael


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    So who protects the UNHCR camps then?

    Who stands in front of a genocidal militia and prevents them killing everyone in sight?

    Who

    The world needs soldiers with the guts to join up and put themselves in harms way to protect others. That is a fact of life.
    Soldiers from decent countries perhaps?

    They were part of a machine that carpet bombed hundreds of villages.


  • Options
    #46
    Leftist
    Registered Users Posts: 2,230 ✭✭✭Leftist


    good points re: compensation in their culture for vietnam vets.

    I'm sure there were a lot of decent soldiers in vietnam, just as there are some equally detestable people in afghanistan (robert bales) and iraq (haditha) as there were in Mai Lai.

    I don't think every soldier should be vilified because of the few, just like not all should be honoured bceause of the few.


  • Options
    #47
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    MikeMichael wrote: »
    Soldiers from decent countries perhaps

    Such as?


  • Options
    #48
    gobnaitolunacy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,073 ✭✭✭gobnaitolunacy


    MikeMichael wrote: »
    But those "warriors" are pro war themselves (they signed up to fight for money) and are the instruments of war. Spitting on them is fair enough when you consider what they got up to.

    Many of the Vietnam vets didn't have the luxury of choice, being draftees.


  • Options
    #49
    Local-womanizer
    Registered Users Posts: 3,798 ✭✭✭Local-womanizer


    Leftist wrote: »
    good points re: compensation in their culture for vietnam vets.

    I'm sure there were a lot of decent soldiers in vietnam, just as there are some equally detestable people in afghanistan (robert bales) and iraq (haditha) as there were in Mai Lai.

    I don't think every soldier should be vilified because of the few, just like not all should be honoured bceause of the few.

    But the majority of soldiers are law abiding, well meaning people. Very few do bad things.

    Even in My Lai an American helicopter landed in a field between the rogue troops and civilians and one member of the crew tried to intervene and stop the massacre but was threatened.

    There are scum in every job and walk of life, it's just unfortunate that in a military these scum have access to assault rifles.


  • Options
    #50
    MikeMichael
    Site Banned Posts: 42 ✭MikeMichael


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Such as?

    Ireland and other non war mongering states who are purely defence based or involved in peacekeeping.

    Fair enough about the drafts, my spit is only reserved for those who actively chose to fight for US interests and those involved in war crimes.


  • Options
    #51
    Zebra3
    Registered Users Posts: 13,852 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    I am by no means a military interventionist but some of the countries where foreign troops are now based have had expansionist policies.

    Regimes like the Taliban supported the global imposition of Sharia Law.

    And yet the US supports a disgusting extremist state like Saudi Arabia.

    As regards the OP, the culture of military obsession comes from the establishment in an attempt to drown out opposition to the illegal wars and the scum that play their part in them.

    All lapped up by idiots who read crap like the Sun and look at X-Factor.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Local-womanizer
    Registered Users Posts: 3,798 ✭✭✭Local-womanizer


    MikeMichael wrote: »
    Fair enough about the drafts, my spit is only reserved for those who actively chose to fight for US interests and those involved in war crimes.

    So a tiny minority then? That's normal behaviour mind you, nobody in their right mind is celebrating the likes of those who commit war crimes.


  • Options
    #53
    Yitzhak Rabin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,225 ✭✭✭Yitzhak Rabin


    gbee wrote: »

    During my time five members of the FCA were shot and killed in various actions, some accidents some in exchange of fire.

    You are talking out your hole here. Can you name anyone in the FCA who was killed in an exchange of fire?

    You were 'shot at'on two occasions? By who? Your comrades?

    Also you weren't over in tChad for the incident you referred to earlier, so don't be relying on second and third hand accounts from your son to try and big yourself up here.


  • Options
    #54
    9959
    Registered Users Posts: 1,785 ✭✭✭9959


    Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »
    You are talking out your hole here. Can you name anyone in the FCA who was killed in an exchange of fire?

    You were 'shot at'on two occasions? By who? Your comrades?

    Also you weren't over in tChad for the incident you referred to earlier, so don't be relying on second and third hand accounts from your son to try and big yourself up here.

    Any critisism of the Irish Army is bound to fall on deaf ears.
    Though it is said that an Irish soldier could hear a 'personal claims lawyer' whispering at a Ted Nugent concert.
    Apparently the cost to the state for 'army deafness' is almost €300 Million!


  • Options
    #55
    Local-womanizer
    Registered Users Posts: 3,798 ✭✭✭Local-womanizer


    9959 wrote: »

    Any critisism of the Irish Army is bound to fall on deaf ears.
    Though it is said that an Irish soldier could hear a 'personal claims lawyer' whispering at a Ted Nugent concert.
    Apparently the cost to the state for 'army deafness' is almost €300 Million!

    Have you ever stood within 50 foot of an assault rifle firing without wearing hearing protection? Or artillery? Or any weapon for that matter?


  • Options
    #56
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    MikeMichael wrote: »
    Ireland and other non war mongering states who are purely defence based or involved in peacekeeping.

    So pretty much just Ireland then.

    Is Ireland prepared to increase its military ten fold? and then invest in some decent ships and planes that can transport it's troops to places where they might be needed?

    And then run the risk of it's soldiers coming home in body bags?

    despite all its faults, the world relies very heavily on US intervention in world trouble spots.


  • Options
    #57
    Yitzhak Rabin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,225 ✭✭✭Yitzhak Rabin


    9959 wrote: »

    Any critisism of the Irish Army is bound to fall on deaf ears.
    Though it is said that an Irish soldier could hear a 'personal claims lawyer' whispering at a Ted Nugent concert.
    Apparently the cost to the state for 'army deafness' is almost €300 Million!

    Why is army deafness in quotation marks?

    I'd be shocked if that was the amount.

    Even still. The reason that there were so many claims is because the government for years refused to provide adequate hearing protection to soldiers. The fact of the matter is exposure to high decibels from weapons and explosives damages ears without protection. Soldiers tried for years to get the army to provide them with ear defenders. Often they improvised by shoving cotton wool in their ears, or purchasing their own. However more often than not they'd be made remove them.

    It was only after people sued the government for causing their deafness through lack of proper equipment that they finally got their act together and started providing soldiers with the equipment they needed. Had they done that from the start then they wouldn't have had to compensate people for costing them their hearing.


  • Options
    #58
    Topper Harley
    Registered Users Posts: 1,698 ✭✭✭Topper Harley


    MikeMichael wrote: »
    But those "warriors" are pro war themselves (they signed up to fight for money) and are the instruments of war. Spitting on them is fair enough when you consider what they got up to.

    Not all soldiers are pro-war e.g. Pat Tillman. Others regard war as a necessary evil and do their utmost to do a professional job (and there's a lot more to being a soldier than being a trained killer). And then there'll be the yobs who don't give a shit and act the bollocks but these days those types are found out and held accountable for their atrocities.
    gbee wrote: »
    NO, If they went into the army after school, that is were their education ends.

    One must apply for the cadets, get assessed and selected for school leavers, or post leaving cert students ~ otherwise the offers are all initially for graduates.

    In my post, I was referring to the US military, and more specifically, enlisted men.

    I assume you are referring to the Irish Army, where school leavers are required to do a level 8 degree once they have completed their cadetship and similarly, enlisted soldiers are also sometimes given the opportunity to complete college courses.


  • Options
    #59
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    The BBC never shuts up about WWII.

    Their latest odd-ball WWII series is 'Wartime Farm'.

    Who gives a shit?


  • Options
    #60
    MikeMichael
    Site Banned Posts: 42 ✭MikeMichael


    Topper Harley wrote: »
    Not all soldiers are pro-war e.g. Pat Tillman. Others regard war as a necessary evil and do their utmost to do a professional job (and there's a lot more to being a soldier than being a trained killer). And then there'll be the yobs who don't give a shit and act the bollocks but these days those types are found out and held accountable for their atrocities.



    In my post, I was referring to the US military, and more specifically, enlisted men.

    I assume you are referring to the Irish Army, where school leavers are required to do a level 8 degree once they have completed their cadetship and similarly, enlisted soldiers are also sometimes given the opportunity to complete college courses.
    Pat Tilman was hugely pro war. He signed up with the primary intention of going to war despite having no need to do so.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    The BBC never shuts up about WWII.

    Their latest odd-ball WWII series is 'Wartime Farm'.

    Who gives a shit?

    Clearly quite a few people if they devote so much time to it. You should stick to RTE if it irks you so.


Advertisement