to wonder what's so heroic about being in the British army?

[poppylongstocking]

Both my brother in laws are in the army and spend 6 months at a time away from their wife & kids in a country we are under no direct threat from fighting a war which was started on dubious grounds. They are risking their lives, yes, but I don't see it as heroic, I see it as a bit stupid to be honest. I could understand the label 'hero' if we were under direct threat and having our homes bombed as in WW2, but it's very different nowadays, aibu?

and I don't know where on earth the idea that we are in Afghanistan to stop drugs came from. We are there to try and stop Pakistan falling to militant Islamists.

The 'war' on drugs is hindering our strategic aims. There is a simple way to cut off the Italians funding and reduce the supply if drugs. Just buy the damn poppies.

I think it comes from the large amounts of opium (something like 80% of the world supply) are produced in Afghanistan

Why aren't we invading Columbia, Mexico, Egypt etc. then?

And why aren't we taking the much cheaper option of just buying the opium crop from the local warlords?

I agree with you I'm just suggesting why it might be claimed

Oh ok then.

The mention of Pakistan reminds me: it's pretty clear that one of the few existential threats we do conceivably face is that of a nuclear-armed Islamist state. It's a good job that we haven't done anything radically destabilising to any predominantly Muslim nuclear-armed state with an Islamist problem like invade a neighbouring country that has its own bunch of Islamists with extensive cross-border links and lots of Wahhabist funding, then. Oh, wait....

And thank God we didn't squander blood and treasure invading a secular Muslim state so that we lose our will / moral authority / resources to confront the other potentially nuclear-armed Muslim state with an Islamist problem (albeit Shia rather than Sunni). Oh, wait again....thank god for Stuxnet and I hope there's another ten or fifty ideas like it that are being carefully worked through and implemented.

The fact this thread has been started makes me very sad.

Whilst not being involved with the forces I can distinguish between the fact that our forces are our first line of defence to protect our country and the fact that they have no choice where they are sent on tour.

You don't have to agree with the politics of war or the battles that our forces are sent to but it would be common courtesy to show a little bit of respect to the MNetters on here who are linked to people currently serving in battle. Inferring that people are not heroes or are a bit stupid for choosing to serve their country is highly insulting to them and their families regardless of whether you think it is true or not.

You don't always have to agree with a particular course of action that the government takes but sometimes you need to rally round and support the bigger community. Or is it really a case of every man for himself in this country now and patriotism no longer exists? Perhaps so which would explain why pockets of extremism are able to pop up across the country now.

this is a disgusting thread you should be ashamed
they are absolute heroes and i think out of respect for people who have lost loved ones and have been horrifically injured fighting for our country this thread should be removed

I'd agree with the op in the aspect that I don't understand the hero worship of soldiers and certainly don't think of them as heroes.
However I wouldn't go so far as to call it stupid. They are doing a job which they believe in and for some of them it is one that they care enough about to risk their lives for, so fair play to them in that respect that's not stupid but it doesn't make them heroes in my eyes.

YANBU 'to wonder what's so heroic about being in the British army?'

It's not heroic to be a service member per se. If it was then what is the point of medals? This doesn't mean that heroism isn't a factor at times.

Not so keen on the 'stupid' tag.

I think my brother is a hero as are all of his armed services friends. They do a job that very few of us would want to. Yes he chose to do it and I damn wouldn't want to.

Any job that routinely puts you in the firing line (fireman, army, etc) is heroic and to say anything less is a slur against those who have and will die on our behalf.

Really sad that people have so little respect for those who do a dangerous and difficult job.

OP - I'm in enough of a bad mood as it is tonight so I'm just going to tell you that you clearly don't understand the geo-political situation and you sound like a fucking ungrateful idiot.

I think calling all members of the armed forces "heroes" demeans the term and is insulting to real heroes. Of which there are some in the aremed forces.

Oh My God!

OP you really are unbelievable. Its because of people like your BILs that are prepared to do things that put themselves in danger to protect others that we have an army, a fire service, a police service etc. If everyone thought like you we woldnt have people who would do these jobs.

I do agree that with what, was it tb?, said. Of course the people of the other side feel the same about their people. You dont have to agree with them to understand that.

Are you really saying you would feel better if we were being bombed to justify the risk they are taking with their lives? That really is a crazy way of thinking, because you do not feel it is directly affecting you it doesnt need to be done.

YABVU. :(

OP - I agree with you (although not so keen on the use of the word "stupid"). It is undoubtedly a dangerous job that people in the forces do, but as you say, I don't regard it as heroic. I believe their presence in places like Afghanistan increases any "risk" against our country. I also get very annoyed when they are lumped in with the people who served in WW1 and WW2, given that those young men were conscripted and had absolutely no choice about fighting whereas today's men & women chose to join up as their career - no-one asked them to. So whilst they ARE risking their lives undoubtedly, that is THEIR choice.

But knotty, if it wasn't for them, your dad, husband, partner, son, etc would all still be expected to do National Service.

Surely it's better for some to choose, and for us to have a PROPERLY trained and willing professional armed forces than a load of lads who don't wanna know going away barely trained and truly ending up like cannon fodder?!?!

Am late to the thread, but I agree with OP and it's a thought I've had before. Sometimes I feel like the kind of emotional rhetoric seen above is preventing us from having any rational arguments about the "War on Terror" in particular. I'm not saying it's not hard on people fighting and their families, but do think that there are a lot of people who NEED the war to be worthwhile for their own reasons that very often shut down rational debate about the issues.

OP and KnottyHair. I'm in complete agreement with you.

My 13yo speaks of joining the RAF in order to learn to fly. If she does so at 18 I shall be ashamed of her and she sure as hell won't do so beforehand, when she needs my permission.

There's nothing heroic about going out to kill or be killed, imo.

Put simply, YABVU.

I think many people are quick to describe mothers as heroes. Nurses, doctors, sportsmen etc all get the term as well. None of them go to work knowing they stood a chance of a bullet through the head.

The impression I'm getting is that OP doesn't like the war in Afghanistan and is finding a pretty crass way to make her point. Feel free to say its pointless, doesn't affect us etc. The facts don't bear that up.

Yes, it is thousands of miles away. In case you hadn't noticed, we now live in a globalised world. What happens in Afghanistan, America, China etc. has a direct impact on us here in Britain. Surely the financial difficulties of the last few years have made that pretty clear?

The greatest risk to the lives of people in our nation at the moment is from terrorism. Much of this terrorism has its roots in Islamic militant groups such as Al Quaida, who have strongholds across the regions in which we're fighting. They have previously had a quasi-legitimate government - the Taliban - which was happy to support, fund and protect them. Our troops are fighting this.

This is also one of the most politically unstable areas in the world at present. The close military presence to Pakistan is a necessary deterrent to a number of people in their formal and informal leadership structures who would otherwise be looking to perform a similar role to the TTaliban in the north of their country and who are happy to engage in war-mongering rhetoric with India as well.

Are we (meaning NATO) the perfect group of people to try and maintain some tenuous grip on global stability? Not by a million miles. But the stark reality is that there is no-one else to do it.

We are all connected now. If you think it is better for everybody to just let each country carry on, regardless of how they conduct themselves and the consequences of their actions then fine. Please do bear in mind though, that the Americans were never at direct risk from Germany in WW2 - they recognised the global significance of what was happening in Europe and stepped in (this was happening before Pearl Harbour). Did we have to go into Kosovo? Nope. Again, it was a long way away, but Clinton led that charge and we went side by side. Where would the Balkans be now if we hadn't?

I'm not trying to justify war per se - we would all like to see more clarity and openness from the people who make the big decisions - but the reality is that on occasions, I think we need it. Its good that we are sceptical about this, its good that we ask questions, hold people to account and are hard to convince. When people are dying, we shouldn't accept it easily. But don't denigrate those people that are losing their lives, or their families.

Some do join the forces because of the lack of other options. Contraversial to say, but something we were all to aware of at the last school I worked at. The head was very loathe to let the forces do their usual recruitment drives for that reason. Some of the boys I worked with were ferocious in their patriotism and desire to protect/serve. Maybe they didn't have a million other options, but they were aware of what they were signing up for and chose that over an easy life stacking shelves in Tescos or on the dole.

This doesn't diminish their bravery in any way, but it does diminish those use this fact to try to do so...IMHO. As if they are intrinsically less valuable because they were never going to cure cancer. Disgusting.

YANBU
some soldiers may be heroes for specific heroic acts. The way some civillians are. I understand individuals may feel better believing their family members to be heroes when they go off to war because it helps them with the fear that must come with it. But I'd prefer my family to live in a country with out a war and where soldiers don't come home to my town to start fights on every street corner because theyre too fucked up by coming back from war.

Going to a country to fight a war because you've been told to, knowing it is wrong, in itself doesn't make you a hero.

I also believe it makes us as a country more vulnerable to terroist attacks. So wish everyone would keep their "heroism" to a minumum.

I think this is an OP and my points have been made by many posters already but I just wanted to say YANVVU as a mark of support for the troops who do put their lives at risk whatever draws them to the forces.

I know a Mum of a soldier and he is just a lad.. he has endured stuff beyond my imagination.

I am glad X Factor is helping Help For Heroes.....

YABVU. A person who deliberately seeks out bombs in order to defuse them and make safe land around a school, a hospital, a mosque etc is a Hero. And our Army EOD people have done all that and more - and they have died and been maimed.

From some of the comments here it would seem that we should have an army who when faced with being deployed into a situation, should huddle together and decide whether they are going to go or not. If they decide they do not agree with the Government they shoud say 'sorry don't fancy this one'. Our military would then be worthy of the high morale ground the OP holds - and our country would be where exactly?

As soon as any rogue state realised all they had to do was 'rattle the sabres' and then they would not be faced by any military challenge they would invade. By which time our (very small) military would be unable to repel them from out little Island and the OP (if allowed/alive) would post 'shouldn't we have done something sooner?'

Not all members of the military are Heroes - but anyone willing to die to ensure freedom and safety for others even though they may be called 'stupid' is certainly worthy of respect. I hope you can accept that without a military back up plan our national security would be untenable - and the military do not get to choose their battles, your Government do.

Valhalla - Would you rather have no armed forces at all then?

Appreciate that the idea of killing is repugnant to many, and that the rationale behind some conflicts we as a country have entered is contentious...but given the inherent instability of the world do you think we can risk as a nation not having arned forces?