Why do people join the army....? and why should we honour them?

[LittleRedSparke]

Ok - i have my tin hat at the ready, and am ready to be flamed.....

This is genuine (i post a bit so you can see this is not my first and i havent nc'd)

First off - I appreciate those who fight for the rights of my country.... but I am not sure why we should raise them to a 'god-like' status, like you see on facebook etc

Yes, they're doing a good job - but no one forces them to do it, as far as I know (prepared to be told i am wrong of course) they join up of their own free will? I read 'how wonderful they are, and how they only do it because of some saint like calling they have'

I dont mean to offend anyone - but I have a friend who is ex-forces, and on occasion he mentions stuff about forces being let down by the government - even though he wasnt there for long, only joined up as he didnt have anywhere to live and no prospects, he's come out - and now has no prospects and has some kind of (non army related) injury, and I just got to thinking.....

This whole "heroes" thing seems to be a concept dreamed up by the Sun, and Help for Heroes rides off the back of that concept.

I agree with this. The armed forces as heroes seems to be a post 9/11 construct. I'm sure your average soldier would be mortified to refer to himself/herself as a hero. To refer to all serving military personnel as such just dilutes the true meaning of the word 'heroism'.

Because if we didn't talk about how brave and wonderful they were we'd have to come to terms with the fact that we're sending babies over to get their limbs blown off to further a corporate agenda with oil. We're killing off soldiers pointlessly to be able to save a few cents per gallon of gas at the pump.

But you say that and people get upset... and for the wrong reasons. They should get upset that their son is now permanently injured and unable to care for himself for no fucking reason, not the fact that someone said it.

It is a fine line though, the soldier's who are injured do need support. They don't need to be demoralized further by telling them it was all for nothing. During Vietnam when US soldiers came back they were treated appallingly, we don't want a repeat of that. They do need support, but more importantly they need to stop sending young impressionable kids off to fight a pointless war.

My great-grandfather served in WW1, grandfather in WW2. I don't observe any remembrance days or the 'honour the troops' crap from the government. They tortured my grandfather with electric shock treatment in attempts to force him to forget his experiences in SE Asia and Japan. He blamed America for a lot of it (thought they did it to rebuild Japan). Dying for arms sales and lies is not glorious.

I don't think ex servicemen are 'heroes' but I think it's utterly shameful how some of these men are treated when they come back from a war with PTSD and there is no psychological help for them. It's like the Government has got what they wanted from them and then they are just cast aside. Time has shown how both the Iraq and Afganistan 'wars' were both pointless and counter productive and many men have lost their lives for nothing. What was it all for..?

I have read the whole thread, and it has been very interesting and sad to learn about other people's experiences. I do have love and respect for the soldiers, just because they are people.

I am so afraid sometimes that the government will suddenly decide that everyone of a certain age has to go to war, like in the past. Thank goodness that we do have a choice at the moment.

I would never want my children to join. I didn't have children, just so that they could be blown up and killed in some pointless war. The world is run by maniacs, with insane objectives and motives. It's horrific that millions of families have been blown apart and deeply affected, because the people at the top make insane decisions, and create strange and dangerous situations.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms in not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

That being said, the government should do a lot more to look after the people who fight on their behalf, and their families whilst they are still here, and not just honour them when they are dead. They honour people who gave their lives during wars, but many didn't give their lives. Their lives were taken.

Protecting Iraqi and afghan civilians is a joke. How many of themhave the allies maimed killed orphaned?

Considerably less than the taliban and thousands less than would have been killed under Sadam Hussain has he not been overcome . Do you have any idea of the horror of either of those two regimes?

It's a career choice. They are well paid to do a job and know the risks when they enlist, as do those who join the police or the fire service. I respect their choice but don't revere or honour them any more than I do anyone else.

Not all of them are " heroes" - most aren't, they are just ordinary people doing a job. I respect the job they do but I don't get sentimental about it.

The word "hero" has become devalued by the charity "Help for Heroes". Some soldiers are indeed heroes and perform acts of extreme bravery others just aren't.

Those in lifeboat crews are true heroes - they risk their lives regularly on a voluntary basis.

I am grateful to the extent that there are people who stand ready to defend our borders and enforce NATO. Beyond this (and most of it is beyond this, frankly) I'm not terrifically grateful, because it's made the world a far more dangerous place.

I hate the use of the word 'hero', dreamed up by the gutter press and now has a life of its own.

I think we owe our military personnel a good deal of gratitude and respect.

I wonder how those expressing disdain would feel if people didn't volunteer and conscription was reintroduced.

Not all join up to escape a bad home life. Take the man I know who ended up being very senior. Joined post uni with a Msc.

Did a lot of good humanitarian work before becoming involved in the latest round of conflicts. Of course he had to get involved as he was not entitled to a view despite his political leanings.

Missed his father's death from leukaemia and his DC's heart surgery because he was in the Middle East for 9 months. Missed more Christmases and birthdays than he managed to be there for during his DC's childhood.

Became a test pilot, seeing a couple of friends die on a project he was working on, but having to carry on with the project, because he didn't have a choice.

Not a job I would want to do, impacts family life massively. If my DC chose to join the forces I would be proud of them.

My husband, ex-army officer, with friends who were brigadiers, etc, has a problem with the 'Hero' soubriquet, saying that not all soldiers are heroes, they are representative of society as a whole. Treat them with respect and gratitude, of course.

^Much as I appreciate anyone's humanitarian's efforts, it's not really the role of the armed forces - is it? The armed forces should stand ready to strike as necessary, and not much else.

I think that being part of NATO, means involvement beyond 'being ready to strike', Bosnia in the 90s for instance.

So, yes, respect and gratitude from me.

Perhaps you missed my previous post where I said "enforcing NATO".

Bosnia shaped the rest of my life and changed me immeasurably. It took far more out of me than Iraq. It was my first experience of being part of a NATO force and was certainly more than 'ready to strike'.

And to slightly correct a poster further back, I have served alongside the Irish Defence Force. Whilst it is true they are a peacekeeping force, they have also served under the umbrella of NATO (IFOR, KFOR and SFOR) which means they have the same Rules of Engagement as any other military force deploying. They have battled and gained battle honours, both individual and Force.

"The armed forces as heroes seems to be a post 9/11 construct."

The armed forces and war have always been glorified. That's why Wilfred Owen felt the need to write Dulce et Decorum Est about WW1.

It's in the interest of the government to keep the belief of "Dulce et Decorum est" going as it encourages young lads to see the army as a noble profession.

Of course in the very very last resort we need the armed forces but the problem is we don't use it in the last resort do we? We've been fighting wars we should have kept out of.

I have a lot of respect for the armed forces, despite, or maybe because of, growing up in 1980/90s N Ireland. 'The army' were often pretty horrible to us, as civilians trying to lead a normal life. When you're walking to school minding your own business and a wee smartarse with a gun takes great delight in pointing it at you and pretending to pull the trigger then laughing with his mates when you jump, it doesn't really fill you with love for the whole of the military. And that sort of crap happened all the time.

And yet...the army undoubtedly saved my life on occasions, and thousands of other people's lives too. They were the ones stopping us from driving into a street with a bomb in it, they were the ones herding us away from danger. They were in constant danger, even in their bases, or at home and off duty, they weren't safe, and maybe the strain of that spilled over and led to them treating us like crap sometimes? They are human, they are only people, and most of them are decent, moral humans, who want to do the right thing.

Their motivation for joining doesn't matter to me - those people agreeing to do that tough job voluntarily means that other people aren't being forced into it. I am grateful to them.

I have respect and gratitude for the armed forces. They do it so you don't have to. I always think of Jack Nicholson's 'You can't handle the truth' speech in A Few Good Men. Words said by an evil character but which hold so much truth.
OP, I don't know what you meant to gain from this thread. The stories of personal sacrifice say it all. LucyBabs Go and have a wee lie down dear.

Just caught up with the thread. Very interesting . Agree that the vast majority are modest and hate the heroes tag, although the occasional Walts exist who brag about saving the world single handedly. I recently had to introduce a very VERY senior officer, now retired, as a speaker at an event. Was given a very long bio to read of his life and achievements as his intro. Got as far as "General X joined the army in...." and he interrupted with "Oh please don't. It's all so boring." and then just got on with his presentation.

Ego

That's not quite the whole story of Irish neutrality. The vast majority of Allied airmen were not interned in Ireland during WW2, they were allowed slip across the border to NI. The small number were 'interned' (in very comfortable surroundings and free to move around) were released in 1943 Unlike German combatants who were interned, in much stricter conditions and until the end of the war.

Irish intelligence agencies also cooperated a great deal with British counterparts: passing information on German codes (independent of Bletchley Park) and information relating to, eg, shipping movements and weather forecasts.

Perhaps most importantly, Ireland agreed to allow the Allies use of the air corridor over Donegal into Lough Foyle - no such rights were accorded to the Germans.

Ireland was officially neutral but unofficially it was unquestionably pro-Allied.

(And by unofficially I don't mean public opinion - which was far more complex - but the majority of 'the Establishment'. The visit to the German Legation needs to be put in the context of a scrupulous outward observance of neutrality, a mathematical logic on the part of Dev and extremely bad personal relations between him and the American minister)

Just to detract from the Googletastic posts now in full flow, I think this is a very valid thread. I was in Baghdad during the invasion and make no mistake it was a brutal invasion. I am disgusted by the oil invasions and hate the patriotic Brits and Americans who think it is a good idea to destroy an entire infastructure based on political and financial motivation. I hate the servicemen who posed with my fellow compatriots, pissing in their mouths and playing with their genitals for a laugh. I hope that they, along with Blair, rot in hell. The British servicemen however are brave and dedicated. They didn't decide to invade Iraq, they didn't risk their lives for any other reason than they were ordered to. So many of them have list their lives and, as far as I know, most don't go round abusing prisoners or shooting holden for a laugh. They may not have died in an heroic war but they deserve every much respect as any other person who sacrificed their own life for the wider good. I salute them as I would any normal, decent person who decides to get off their arse and do something g they believe in. Whether that is hailing yourself to a tree, marching for CND or fighting for your country.

The Irish in WW1 joined the British Army, despite being at war with the British, they wanted to rule themselves it was set aside, they were not cowards.

everyone I know that joined up was escaping something. Poverty, unemployment, gangs, crime, abuse, unhappy marriages are some of the reasons I know of. But from this thread I see that others have different experiences.

I suspect these people would have had mental health issues anyway. It could be argued that joining the army as drinking to excess, smoking, ttaking part in extreme sports, taking drugs and overeating are all forms of self harm.