Do the public understand why the army does what it does?

#1
After listening to the 5 live radio show extract from the RMAS news section, (yes all 4 hours of it :x ) I was astonished to discover the narrow mindedness of some of the public's view on why the army is doing what it is doing.

Towards the end of the link there were numerous beliefs brought up that made me feel ashamed of some of the public's beliefs. Some of these were:
-That the army were trained to be murderers. (This is a load of b*****ks, yes they are taught how to defend themselves resulting sometimes in loss of life but it is only using necessary force, and it is used as a defence.
-We should not be in Afghanistan. (I honestly believe that fighting in Afghanistan is for the benefit of us, as the Taliban pose a great threat to everyone. Sept 11 and 7/7 are examples of this. Trying to stop the threat of terrorist attacks will never be over and is by no means easy, but if it protects the freedom and safety of us, then surely it is a worthwhile cause.)
- Saddam wasn't as bad as he was made out to be and we caused more damage to that country(This was just one mans view yet in reference to Saddam but there are large amounts of people who believe the country has been damaged because of us.). (The majority of the British public did not know of the atrocities occuring in Iraq before the invasion, and therfore can only comment on what was reported once the invasion had occured.)

I understand everyone has the right to freedom of speech, but the verbal assault that the British armed forces recieves at times is disgraceful. The military is there to protect our liberties (which are taken for granted way too often), to protect our right to freedom and to ensure that we can live in a safe environment. Way too often it is forgotten that the men and women of our armed forces are risking everything they have, in order to protect our country.

The radio extract is focused on RMAS, but the telephone call-ins towards the end are directed at all armed forces.

What I'm trying to ask is whether you believe that our liberties have been taken for granted so much that we are forgetting what it would be like if they was not in place? Would there be such wide critiscm of our armed forces if people were not "wrapped in cottonwool" so to speak from the day that they were born.


p.s I know I will probably get torn to shreds over this post, but I really believe that the armed forces do not get the recognition that they deserve. Obviously the Help4Heroes has helped tremendously but there are still secters of society out there that are not backing our troops.

Tear away.

-OCS-
 
#2
The protected must never know what the protectors do
 
#3
OcdtSadler said:
-That the army were trained to be murderers. (This is a load of b*****ks, yes they are taught how to defend themselves resulting sometimes in loss of life but it is only using necessary force, and it is used as a defence.

We're trained to defend ourselves? What about offensive operations where we actively seek to engage and destroy the enemy? That's not defence.

-We should not be in Afghanistan. (I honestly believe that fighting in Afghanistan is for the benefit of us, as the Taliban pose a great threat to everyone. Sept 11 and 7/7 are examples of this. Trying to stop the threat of terrorist attacks will never be over and is by no means easy, but if it protects the freedom and safety of us, then surely it is a worthwhile cause.)

In all honesty we shouldn't be there. WTF has the sh1thole got to do with us? We went to appease the yanks. The terrorists are already in Britain in their hundreds and we pay them to stay here!

- Saddam wasn't as bad as he was made out to be and we caused more damage to that country(This was just one mans view yet in reference to Saddam but there are large amounts of people who believe the country has been damaged because of us.). (The majority of the British public did not know of the atrocities occuring in Iraq before the invasion, and therfore can only comment on what was reported once the invasion had occured.)

Saddam probably wasn't as bad as the coalition made him out to be. We all try to make our enemies look bad! Iraq was definitely better off for the vast majority before we stormed in there. Places like Iraq need to be ruled with an iron fist.

I understand everyone has the right to freedom of speech, but the verbal assault that the British armed forces recieves at times is disgraceful. The military is there to protect our liberties (which are taken for granted way too often), to protect our right to freedom and to ensure that we can live in a safe environment. Way too often it is forgotten that the men and women of our armed forces are risking everything they have, in order to protect our country.

And we get paid well for doing our job! Most in the armed forces don't risk much to be honest.

What I'm trying to ask is whether you believe that our liberties have been taken for granted so much that we are forgetting what it would be like if they was not in place? Would there be such wide critiscm of our armed forces if people were not "wrapped in cottonwool" so to speak from the day that they were born.

Why do you think the public is wrapped in cotton wool. If anything, the armed forces is.
-OCS-
 
#5
I heard that the army kills babies.....



When I was at university I was really shocked by the general ignorance of those "liberals" protesting. They generally had no idea of what was actually going on; considering they spent so much energy protesting "against the armed forces" et al. you'd think they would take some time to read up.

While I agree its perfectly reasonable to take issue with the government policy but support the armed forces (I do to some degree) these people seemed to equate one with the other and have a very very perverse view as to what was going on. There were those who, literally, thought you were out there bayoneting babies!
 
#6
Fallschirmjager said:
OcdtSadler said:
-That the army were trained to be murderers. (This is a load of b*****ks, yes they are taught how to defend themselves resulting sometimes in loss of life but it is only using necessary force, and it is used as a defence.

We're trained to defend ourselves? What about offensive operations where we actively seek to engage and destroy the enemy? That's not defence.

-We should not be in Afghanistan. (I honestly believe that fighting in Afghanistan is for the benefit of us, as the Taliban pose a great threat to everyone. Sept 11 and 7/7 are examples of this. Trying to stop the threat of terrorist attacks will never be over and is by no means easy, but if it protects the freedom and safety of us, then surely it is a worthwhile cause.)

In all honesty we shouldn't be there. WTF has the sh1thole got to do with us? We went to appease the yanks. The terrorists are already in Britain in their hundreds and we pay them to stay here!

- Saddam wasn't as bad as he was made out to be and we caused more damage to that country(This was just one mans view yet in reference to Saddam but there are large amounts of people who believe the country has been damaged because of us.). (The majority of the British public did not know of the atrocities occuring in Iraq before the invasion, and therfore can only comment on what was reported once the invasion had occured.)

Saddam probably wasn't as bad as the coalition made him out to be. We all try to make our enemies look bad! Iraq was definitely better off for the vast majority before we stormed in there. Places like Iraq need to be ruled with an iron fist.

I understand everyone has the right to freedom of speech, but the verbal assault that the British armed forces recieves at times is disgraceful. The military is there to protect our liberties (which are taken for granted way too often), to protect our right to freedom and to ensure that we can live in a safe environment. Way too often it is forgotten that the men and women of our armed forces are risking everything they have, in order to protect our country.

And we get paid well for doing our job! Most in the armed forces don't risk much to be honest.

What I'm trying to ask is whether you believe that our liberties have been taken for granted so much that we are forgetting what it would be like if they was not in place? Would there be such wide critiscm of our armed forces if people were not "wrapped in cottonwool" so to speak from the day that they were born.

Why do you think the public is wrapped in cotton wool. If anything, the armed forces is.
-OCS-
A rather good reply falsch. How many actually read it is another matter, before bumping their gums.
 
#7
#8
Disagree with you on a couple of points, Fallschirmjager.

In all honesty we shouldn't be there. WTF has the sh1thole got to do with us? We went to appease the yanks. The terrorists are already in Britain in their hundreds and we pay them to stay here!
It has everything to do with us. Insecure countries export their insecurity to the developed world - in Afghanistan's case through opiates, terrorism and migration. It's not a coincidence that bin Laden was holed up in the country pre-2001: Al Qaida tried Somalia but found it too anarchic to effectively use as a launchpad for its operations. With a friendly regime in Afghanistan, they were able to plan the Sept. 11 attacks away from Western influence. Moreover, if we leave the Afghan government weak and unstable, Iran and whatever the successor to Musharraf's government is will use Afghanistan as a way of increasing their influence.

Saddam probably wasn't as bad as the coalition made him out to be. We all try to make our enemies look bad! Iraq was definitely better off for the vast majority before we stormed in there. Places like Iraq need to be ruled with an iron fist.
He was every bit as bad as the coalition made him out to be. Of course, so are the leaders of a lot of countries which we didn't invade; but that doesn't make Saddam a good ruler. As for Iraq being better off? That's like trying to predict Arsenal's performance next season based on how they did in the preseason friendlies. I don't think we'll be able to properly judge the long term effects of the invasion for another twenty years or so.
 
#9
I think there is a problem with quite a large cross-section of our society in as much as lots of people now actually don't feel much affinity towards this country full stop,people have been encouraged to go through life just thinking of themselves and anything that doesn't actually affect them directly they don't give a toss about.Something that i've been aware of for some time now is also how little press or airtime is allocated for the reporting of iraq/afghanistan issues,people have just become monged out by britains got talent and the like.
 
#10
tropper66 said:
And Tommy saves their Arrse, in flood,fire or on a mountain top when the stupid civvi gets lost,

Or when tommy in his helecopter medivacs them, or picks them out of the sea
Too right, and it's forgotten when convenient.
Nothing really changes regarding the public's attitude to poor old Tommy.
Cheer him off to war and jeer him when he returns home.
 
D

dennis10

Guest
#11
overpromoted said:
Disagree with you on a couple of points, Fallschirmjager.

In all honesty we shouldn't be there. WTF has the sh1thole got to do with us? We went to appease the yanks. The terrorists are already in Britain in their hundreds and we pay them to stay here!
It has everything to do with us. Insecure countries export their insecurity to the developed world - in Afghanistan's case through opiates, terrorism and migration. It's not a coincidence that bin Laden was holed up in the country pre-2001: Al Qaida tried Somalia but found it too anarchic to effectively use as a launchpad for its operations. With a friendly regime in Afghanistan, they were able to plan the Sept. 11 attacks away from Western influence. Moreover, if we leave the Afghan government weak and unstable, Iran and whatever the successor to Musharraf's government is will use Afghanistan as a way of increasing their influence.
I disagree. I was one of those who believed the politicians when they said we are there to stop another 7/7 or 9/11, maybe I was young and naive. However, I was converted to my current ‘out of Afghanistan' position when the 100th soldier died. As we all know, when a death is a milestone like the 1st death, the 50th or 100th, this is the only time politicians send their condolences and talk about the reasons why we are there. They said the normal reason (which is in bold), which is fair enough. It’s what happened a week later. Osama’s right hand man in Europe was let out of prison and allowed to carry on living here. What’s the point of a soldier fighting terrorists in Afghanistan, but still allowing terrorists to live here after a minor sentence in prison (how many have been given life?) and still allowing any number of potential terrorists from Pakistan, Iran and other Muslim countries to come here.
 
#12
Fallschirmjager said:
Saddam probably wasn't as bad as the coalition made him out to be. We all try to make our enemies look bad! Iraq was definitely better off for the vast majority before we stormed in there. Places like Iraq need to be ruled with an iron fist.
Iron fist? What about poison gas or was saddam just trying to get rid of the rats in Halabja?

Or the remainder of the Al-Anfal attrocities which of course included concentration camps and what amounts to "Ethnic Cleansing".


Poor misunderstood saddam...... he was like Father Christmas, but Iraqi.

Guy was a cnut, and needed taking down.. There are a fair few others that need taking down too, but I doubt the UN/World will get together to do it (esp as there is little or no resources in these places).

Next on tonights show.

slobba, was he really that bad?
 
#13
As a civvie, i will put my 2d in here.

In general;

Growing up, i was taught about WWII and that it was necessary for soldiers to kill to defend our way of life. However, there are also many messages put out socially and by the media that killing is wrong, which as a general rule it is in a civil society.

What i believe people do not understand is the dichotomy between the desired behaviour within a civil society and what is required to defend that society from people who are willing to use force to take control.

There will always be those who wish to take what others have by force, be that property of freedom. What the public (and gordon brown) do not understand is that there are people out there who are willing to do ANYTHING to achieve power, be it explicitly for their own benefit, or under the cloak of religion. Any civilised society must have people who are willing and able to stop agressors and that sometimes means using force to overpower that agressor - up to and including killing them.

Having said that, the british empire was built primarily on trade. we made it in the interests of our colonies to remain so. This would be the 'hearts and minds' side of current ops, which i believe has been sold as a panacea in the media, which it is not.

I came to my (admittedly limited) understanding of this after a great deal of study. these things are not discussed in the media or in 'civilised society'.

So, i agree that there is a high level of ignorance, but there are also a great many civvies who do understand.

Specifically, afghanistan;

there is little coverage of what is being done over there, which is a shame. I would say that this government bears much of the blaim for this. They don't want to talk about it, as it would reflect badly against their generat antipathy to our armed forces. There is nothing stopping the PM from issuing a statement every week or even everyday, detailing the current efforts of our forces in afghanistan. I have said before, that if the counrty goes to war, it should be the country that goes to way, not just the armed forces. broon and his 'peace activist' buddies are trying to hide tha conflict away, and are doing the minimum of work to support those efforts.

(not sure that makes much sense, but anyway.....)
 
#14
No more than the majority understand what any specialist form of human activity really involves.

They have a vague idea (jut as I have a vague idea of what an MP actually does :roll: ) but really nothing more than a perception based on partial information and plain prejudice in some cases.

Unfortunately, you simply cannot argue with idiots who hold such entrenched views: they know they are right.

Anyhoo, this is something useful to beat such namby pamby pinko liberal woolly minded scum over the head with:


“We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”

(Attributed to George Orwell & Winston Churchill)
 
#15
dennis10 said:
I disagree. I was one of those who believed the politicians when they said we are there to stop another 7/7 or 9/11, maybe I was young and naive. However, I was converted to my current ‘out of Afghanistan' position when the 100th soldier died. As we all know, when a death is a milestone like the 1st death, the 50th or 100th, this is the only time politicians send their condolences and talk about the reasons why we are there. They said the normal reason (which is in bold), which is fair enough. It’s what happened a week later. Osama’s right hand man in Europe was let out of prison and allowed to carry on living here. What’s the point of a soldier fighting terrorists in Afghanistan, but still allowing terrorists to live here after a minor sentence in prison (how many have been given life?) and still allowing any number of potential terrorists from Pakistan, Iran and other Muslim countries to come here.
The terrorism issue is only a part of it, and it's an oversimplification to say that we're in Afghanistan and Iraq to "prevent another 9/11". Stuff like that is just an example of what can happen when you leave a country like Afghanistan to do its own thing. The truth is that, like any other country, we're only in Afghanistan for what we can get out of it - if the powers that be thought it was worthwhile to do so, we'd be gone tomorrow. So you have to think that there's a purpose to us being there.
 
#16
The Army is not here to protect the weak or helpless, we are here to protect the interests of whatever party is in power. :roll:
 
#17
chocolate_frog said:
Iron fist? What about poison gas or was saddam just trying to get rid of the rats in Halabja?

Or the remainder of the Al-Anfal attrocities which of course included concentration camps and what amounts to "Ethnic Cleansing".
Okay, so he may have made one or two little boo boos but i'm sure he didn't mean it. On the whole he was probably a very nice bloke who liked fluffy kittens and wrote poetry. He only killed those he didn't like! What's wrong with that? :)
 
A

ALVIN

Guest
#19
Answer --- No they dont, and do they care? --- But more to the point, Do the government understand, and do they care? It is a sad state of affairs guys when it gets like this.
 
#20
In answer to the title of the thread,
No, but, there is a ground swell of media coverage, well there is in the west country.
Wootton Bassett is regularly featured on ITV & BBC whenever repatriations take place.
Any local units are heavily covered in the local media and press, and even ITV are now running their evening news from Lashkar Gar. All this week in fact.

They may not all take it on bord , but the ones who bother to vote seem to be being catered for.
 

Similar threads

New Posts