AIBU, the miltery awards on ITV

[RoseRedder]

AIBU?

I think this is wrong

The 'wars' these men/women have been in are all made up wars by the UK and USA government

And now there is a tv programme giving them celebrity status

I don't doubt the people of will be nominated will have gone out their way to aid their colleagues

But turning war into a tv programme is beyond sick

Totally agree re H4H, when it came about the injured servicemen were getting a very raw deal and almost 'swept under the carpet'.

H4H made a difference at the time, and still does, but the limited nature of it, coupled with the 'heroes' implication is what doesn't sit right with many.

I, too, support SSAFA as they are there for all servicemen - current and ex - and their families, and help in so many ways.

It is also easy to forget that there is more to the armed forces than soldiers - most people in the RAF join up to do a trade, 'being a soldier' is quite frankly the furthest thing from their minds.

There are many, many different facets to the forces - blind worship is ridiculous, but so is blanket disapproval.

Or just don't watch it. It's a vehicle for minor celebs, that's all.

xpost!

The majority of the british army do a great job. But this unending need to portray them as heroic role models, always of course supported by nasty little rags of papers like the sun, express and mail...really clouds the debate about their role and the wars they fight in.

Most people have the ability to differentiate between the politicians who send troops to war/the rights and songs of that war, and the troops themselves.

Yes, firefighters and the RNLI should have their own, televised awards... But why not argue FOR that, rather than AGAINST any one having one?

Why don't people argue AGAINST Sports Personality of the Year? After all, don't sports people earn enough already and aren't they recognised enough already?

Why's it just the Military Awards that come in for such bashing year on year?

One more thought... The military awards also recognise the families that are left behind, sometimes unable to see - or even speak to - their loved ones for weeks and months on end. I don't think that's a bad thing. It's really only recently (Military Wives Choir, Poppy Girls) that they've had any voice at all.

And Rose' since you still haven't told us who you think the Falklands belong to, I'm going to presume you have no opinion on the matter. How sad that you choose to spout such uninformed bullshit and have to resort to trolling websites to get your kicks.

I pity you.

rights and wrongs of that war not songs.

These didn't come in for a bashing, did they? Funny that, because teachers are blindly, hero worshiped on MN!

To me, there is a difference between firefighters and soldiers.

A firefighter trains and takes his job with the exclusive aim of saving life and property.

A soldier knows that he is ultimately training to kill people. He may do sterling work helping civilians at the same time, but nobody who enlists can possibly be ignorant of the fact that he is also there to be used to kill.

He also knows that once he has enlisted he will not be able to choose not to kill if he thinks the war is unjust or if the target turns out to be civilian. Unlike the soldiers who enlisted specifically to fight against Hitler, a modern professional soldier is taking a job to fight against anyone, on the government's say so.

It seems to me that there is an odd sleight of hand going on here: if the soldier does something we approve of then he gets the credit- he is a hero.

If he does something we disapprove of (such as bombing civilian targets) then it is not his fault because he is acting on orders.

So why does he get the credit when things go right then?

What does make a hero? Surely not risking your life on its own- otherwise we'd consider race track drivers heroes. They risk their lives, they have children too and presumably their families get just as upset when they are killed. But we don't call them heroes. So it can't be that on its own.

It must be something to do with risking your life for the benefit of other people. But in that case, why are we not allowed to ask whether these people are actually risking their lives for our benefit? In other words, why should not their hero status be linked to the perceived value, to the nation and to humankind, of the wars they are fighting?

I do think it is shameful that the government are not doing more for the soldiers who have been fighting their wars. They owe them.

And if a national newspaper wants to organise an award ceremony that is fine by me. Why shouldn't they spend their money in a way that seems good to them?

But as a member of the public, I don't think I owe the soldiers of Britain anything unless I actually believe their sacrifices should have been made in the first place.

What about wars that may actually have put the nation more at risk, by enflaming feelings against us. Do we have to be grateful for those? What about wars where the British army has later been shown to have taken part in atrocities? Do we have to be grateful for that?

Or could we perhaps be allowed to regard those fighting such wars in the light of race track drivers: yes, they are risking their lives, but on the whole I would rather they didn't.

excellent post cory, this is how i feel too.

Great post Cory

Just one thing... why are we not allowed to ask whether these people are actually risking their lives for our benefit?

You are allowed to question it... And as someone with relatives who have been sent away - repeatedly - on the whim of Cameron/Blair, I hope you do carry on questioning it, vehemently. Perhaps that way, my relatives will be able to stay at home with their families.

In the meantime, yes... I think the jobs my relatives do and the sacrifices they make (both those that serve and their families who stay behind) are pretty heroic.

brilliant post cory, wish there was a like/recommend button. Best post on this subject I have read by far.

i would not say heroic, some some actions by some in the military at some times may be.

i think that a blanket 'our boys are heroes' sentiment allows us to ignore all the other things which occur in any military operation. and they do occur, and it isn't just one or two bad apples- from individual abuses committed by individual soldiers to drone strikes on wedding parties.

i am sure no one who is posting or reading has any loved ones who would do such things, but someone's loved one does, and is probably doing it right now.

I do see how very hard it must be, SPSJSAT, not least for the families left behind.

But at the same time- your relatives did make that choice. They signed up and took the pay for a job that they knew might include active service. They didn't have to. There is no forced conscription in this country. They chose.

I think that is one of my bug bears: people expect to take the job but not to pay the price.

If you become a soldier, surely you shouldn't complain if you have to go to war?

And if you do go to war= if you go out to kill other people, surely it is a reasonable expectation that other people will try (and may succeed) in killing you?

If you genuinely do that because you are convinced, on good grounds, that it is a job that needs to be done to save other people's lives, then yes, I would agree that makes you a hero.

And there are and there have been heroes like this.

If you take it for the pay and are unpleasantly surprised when you find there is fighting thrown in, then that doesn't seem quite so heroic to me.

Fire fighters don't tend to become fire fighters on the assumption that they won't actually ever have to go into burning buildings.

But I will keep protesting about any war that seems unjust to me. And I sincerely hope your relatives will not have to throw their lives away on some further pointless Cameron/Blair muscle flexing.

Morgen
Not claiming to be anything but an observer with an opinion, ex mil and for once utterly speechless at having read this thread having been steered here by mrs happyandgrumpy
To throw my 2p worth into the fray - our shrinking forces will continue to do more with less, the un educated and poorly informed will remain deluded as what the military exactly is beyond the business end of a bayonet. I do however find it incredible that no matter which arm of the military is call upon to assist at home you get a thank you but quickly after from some quarters of society the same old blah blah returns - made up wars??? made up - hello??? did you consume too much buckfast for dinner last night????
As a former soldier amazingly I am against war, but there sometimes is no other option.
Our forces are something to be proud off. Volunteers one and all who follow orders. They deserve our support and recognition especially when they are returned home wounded and broken by battle. Please OP show a little respect.
RoseRedder & NigellaLaw5on, the pair of you can but only be taking the p155 one would seriously hope.
Compliments of the season to all
G&H

Very measured post Cory. Nice to see some clear and honest views. One thing though, in case you are interested.

Until 1993, females that joined the Forces were "non-combatant". They were considered unable to go to the 'Front Line', no matter what trade. A normal Army career is 22/24 years, so there will still be females (until 2015/17) that joined up with absolutely no expectation of A soldier knows that he is ultimately training to kill people. We were considered females first, tradeswomen second and soldiers third. It was the same for the RAF and RN females, and I also believe at that time the same for male and female medics.

Of course that is all changed, and the females whose contracts changed overnight (bastards!) would have had the opportunity to leave at that point, but I thought you may find that interesting

Women can now go to the front line (I had the dubious 'honour' of being one of the first that did, many many years ago), but not in a 'fighting' role - women still cannot join the Infantry or Cavalary for example, but there are certainly some women taking part in patrols etc

I do see how very hard it must be, SPSJSAT, not least for the families left behind

With the greatest of respect - unless you are one of the family members left behind (and perhaps you are?) you have absolutely no idea. None.

But at the same time- your relatives did make that choice. They signed up and took the pay for a job that they knew might include active service. They didn't have to. There is no forced conscription in this country. They chose.

Of course they chose. If they've been in the Forces for a while the landscape was very different... the 'only' thing on the horizon was NI a few years back - but yes, they chose that career path.

Here's the problem with that argument though. NONE of the serving personnel I know think of themselves as heroes. Not one. They recognise they have a job to do and just do it. They don't ask for hero worship. It's the media that whip it up... not them.

If you take it for the pay and are unpleasantly surprised when you find there is fighting thrown in, then that doesn't seem quite so heroic to me.

Again, I know of no one in the Forces that thinks like this.

But I will keep protesting about any war that seems unjust to me. And I sincerely hope your relatives will not have to throw their lives away on some further pointless Cameron/Blair muscle flexing.

Thank you - so do I.

Interesting about female soldiers, LtEve. That would be a different case: changing contracts does complicate the matter, and I do see that it might not be easy to suddenly back out of a job you had chosen in good faith.

Being a bad at spelling does not make you a bad person, having a bad attitude on the other hand...

You are confusing recognising the sacrifices of individuals with glorifying war

hth

Agree with Cory.

OP may I be the first to congratulate you on how much your spelling and grammar has improved since you started this ridiculous thread. Perhaps if you read even more widely (a newspaper perhaps) then it would improve further, as would your (currently non existent) grip on current affairs.

I have to admit I found the military awards on ITV left me a bit queasy.

I have every sympathy for individual soldiers and acknowledge that many have committed individual acts of heroism whilst deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have friends, colleagues and family members who have been involved in recent conflicts. But the whole rhetoric around these wars is abhorrent.

They Gulf and Afghanistan wars weren't fought 'for us' they aren't keeping us safe, they are dying and being injured to satisfy the vainglorious whims of British and American politicians, this shouldn't be a cause of national mourning not a tacky televised awards ceremony sponsored by a phone-hacking, knicker sniffing rag like the Sun.

The best recognition would be for politicians to properly fund support services for those who come back physically and mentally scarred from the pointless shabby greed driven wars and think twice before playing dice with other people's sons and daughters lives, not schmaltz fest presided over by an X-factor judge and a This Morning

am never going to find out what 'made up war' means am I? :(

will just have to imagine my own happy fantasy of dodging landmines and having fun in the jungle, bayoneting the locals and then getting a special award for it all on ITV

Cory has summed up exactly my feelings on the subject.

Brilliant post Cory.

However I have to agree with one statement made by SPSJSAT, and that is that those serving do not see themselves or asked to be called heros. They absolutely see themselves doing the job that they are trained for, in complete recognition that this may involve killing, and do not shy away from this or ask for glory.

It also also worth noting that when things go wrong, in most instances the military is harder on their own than perhaps the general public would be. Looking at the recent murder conviction brought against a Royal Marine after court martial, I do wonder whether if he had a public trial by jury, he would have found himself convicted of murder. I personally have my doubts.

I see these awards more to do with generating public hysteria, and it is very convenient for the government to have mass support for the troops whilst they are perhaps participating in 'unjust' wars. Someone said above, people conflate support for troops as support for war. This is why it is wrong.

And to answer why it is different from SPOTY, or such other awards, it is because the subliminal political effects of the military awards on the general population are far more dangerous.

I see these awards more to do with generating public hysteria, and it is very convenient for the government to have mass support for the troops whilst they are perhaps participating in 'unjust' wars. Someone said above, people conflate support for troops as support for war. This is why it is wrong.

And to answer why it is different from SPOTY, or such other awards, it is because the subliminal political effects of the military awards on the general population are far more dangerous.

This.

I find it difficult to 'support the troops' when what they are being sent to do something morally repugnant. Sympathy for them and their families yes. Support for them (which implies support for their political paymasters and the war they are fighting in) no. Especially when that 'support' takes the form of glitzy award ceremonies.

Mitchy, I think Battle of the Planets was pretend.