• Congratulations to the Class of 2024 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

Soldiers are not heroes (1 Viewer)

Jaundice

Banned
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
657
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Afghanistan was UN sanctioned.
The UN are hopeless.

What about David Hicks? He fought in a war on the "terrorist" side believing he was fighting for the right thing. But if you fight for your Governments wars its okay.

Yet Australia at one point rescued Australian Israelis that went to Israel to fight against the Palestinians and even gave them the dole while they were Israeli soldiers.
 
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
3,272
Location
The Pub
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
The UN are retarded, no denying it.

Libya, appointed onto the Council for human rights for example.
 

Jaundice

Banned
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
657
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Yeah the UN are pretty shit.

Celebrities are appointed to be ambassadors on issues they no little about.
 

nae_13

Premium Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
76
Location
Small town you don't know
Gender
Female
HSC
2011
im kinda shocked you all have such low opinions of soldiers. At least give them some respect - a lot of them don't just kill people, but are given the job of protecting the citizens, and rebuilding the country. And also Australian soldiers aren't American soldiers. Mass murder of civilians is more the US's style
 

Jaundice

Banned
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
657
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
im kinda shocked you all have such low opinions of soldiers. At least give them some respect - a lot of them don't just kill people, but are given the job of protecting the citizens, and rebuilding the country. And also Australian soldiers aren't American soldiers. Mass murder of civilians is more the US's style
We are talking about warfare.
 

nae_13

Premium Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
76
Location
Small town you don't know
Gender
Female
HSC
2011
Yeah, but thats not just a soldiers only job. You act like they all want to go overseas to murder everyone, when the intentions are there to actually help people. Not just protecting Australia, but to protect civilians of those countries and to help the communities rebuild and recover.
 

Cianyx

Planarian Leader
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
358
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
I'm perfectly capable of protecting myself if the situation requires it as well as given the right amount of training and equipment. I don't need some cunts going around the world and killing others in my name
 
Last edited:

nae_13

Premium Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
76
Location
Small town you don't know
Gender
Female
HSC
2011
Yeah but the thing is if we didn't have soldiers overseas, and something caused them to invade/attack Australia everyone would be up the government for not seeing the risk and working to stop it before it reaches our shores.
 

Cianyx

Planarian Leader
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
358
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
All the more reason for them not to leave the country...?
 

Kittikhun

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2008
Messages
615
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Australians were operating in Helmand until recently, werent they? But yes only an idiot would confuse Americans for Australians.

I have found that interfering (supposedly) on behalf of a people only causes problems. Same with installing loyal Governments.

You have to wait until the people of that nation revolt on their own. Then if they are being slaughtered then i see no problem with international interference. I disagree with invading a nation be on the premise that you disagree with their form of government (unelected or otherwise). If that is legitimate then why dont we just invade all nations with unelected governments. And all nations where international terrorism flourishes (Iran anyone?).
The only Australians in Helmand are about a dozen L118 gunners attached to the British as a part of Operation Herrick. They aren't under Australian command. Besides that, there are no Australians in Helmand and no Australian has ever gone out on patrol to find and fight the enemy in that region since 2002, I believe. Some of our SF operate in Kandahar though, since it's just south of our AO in Oruzgan.

That's what the Afghanis did in their Civil War after the Russians left.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war_in_Afghanistan_(1992-1996)

Unfortunately, the Islamic State of Afghanistan (later called the Northen Alliance) wasn't strong enough to defeat the Taliban in gaining power.

Yeah, but thats not just a soldiers only job. You act like they all want to go overseas to murder everyone, when the intentions are there to actually help people. Not just protecting Australia, but to protect civilians of those countries and to help the communities rebuild and recover.
This is true (as well, if you mention in the psychological interview on Assessment Day that you want to kill people for the fun of it, you will be shown the door and not able to enlist in the ADF). Only around 10% of the Australian Army is infantry, and they're trained only to fire when their lives are in danger or that of their mates. These blokes are well trained ( in fact our rifleman take on one of the longest infantry training courses in the world) and will not fire on civilians (if you will rebuke me with the Commando case about the shooting of innocent civilians, remember that those blokes weren't ARA and instead are Reservists, civilians much like yourselves who work in jobs that you will work in. They were scared, much like anybody would be when you receive fire from an unknown enemy hiding amongst civilians, and did all they could to eliminate the threat to them as they were trained. They did not shoot civilians on purpose and never will). The rest is filled by Corps such as Medical, Engineering, Signals, Logistics etc.. Remember that our main job in Afghanistan is mentoring and training the ANA and police and reconstructing and educating Oruzgan and helping them before we leave. That's why our task force is called the Mentoring Task Force.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/03/2588164.htm

and it's working-

http://www.abc.net.au/news/documents/scribd.htm?id=39566938&key=key-1r6szuf5bfwy4tc4jd35

It would be dishonourable to the highest degree to leave Afghanistan prematurely because of our lack of endurance and to let Afghanistan fall once more into the brutality and ruthlessness of the Taliban. The Afghans put their faith in us to help them to a more peaceful and prosperous future and we have to honour it and fighting and risking your life for a cause such as this, for people who are not even your fellow countrywomen or men, to me that is heroism and altruism to the highest degree.

And if you're in doubt about our mission just look at this-



If you want us to leave, you are condoning this.
 
Last edited:

Azure

Premium Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Messages
5,681
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Very simply put, we should have never gone into Iraq or Afghanistan. We had no business there, and we will not be able to change anything for the best in the long run.
 

Jaundice

Banned
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
657
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Very simply put, we should have never gone into Iraq or Afghanistan. We had no business there, and we will not be able to change anything for the best in the long run.
This.

Our intervention will not bring peace or westernization. It will only bring puppet rule and other issues to the people.
 

stampede

doin it tuff
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
483
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2009
off topic - but im looking forward to a third world war, dont ask why i just am
 
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
3,272
Location
The Pub
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
FROM: http://wartard.blogspot.com/2010/12/all-quiet-on-christmas-front

All quiet on the Christmas front.


One of my favourite Yuletide war stories is the unofficial truce on the Western front in 1914.

Sure, it's a clichéd story today and everybody uses it as the feel good wartime Christmas story but so what, I'm sipping eggnog by a roaring log fire in a Swiss chateaux overlooking the holiday lights of an alpine ski resort. Actually, I'm fucking with you. I'm really knocking back cheap CVS pharmacy vodka next to a crusty electric heater in LA suburbia overlooking my douchebag neighbor's dog shit stained lawn. But that's why I love military history. You get to realize how worse off you could be. You could be in the trenches on the Western Front but for a simple accident of chronology. If you were born male in Britain, Germany, France or Russia in the years 1885-95 it was pretty much guaranteed you'd wind up spending a Christmas knee deep in mud, rats and lice while waiting for your turn to play dodgeball with machine gun bullets.

That's why there's something really heart warming about a football match in No Man's Land.






It was Christmas 1914 in a war that was supposed to be over by Christmas 1914. The soldiers on the field had no real beef with each other. This whole war was triggered because some rich guy the average infantry man had never heard of ate a bullet in Sarajevo. And no mustard gas had melted off anyone's skin yet and the meat stacking operations of the Somme or Passchendaele hadn't even happened. There was still room in 1914 for an outbreak of human camaraderie, spontaneously between men who realized, in a shared holiday season, that they were all human, ordinary joes, flung into the wrong place and time as enemies and destined to be mere pawns chewed up in the global games of fat cat financiers, politicians, generals and old aristocracies.

Some things in history never change right?






It's hard to imagine Christmas in the trenches in 1914. It's not the type of war that happens anymore. Siege warfare in open mud. WWI came at an interesting period where, for the first time in military history, there was no battlefield mobility. Cavalry were obsolete and armored maneuver warfare hadn't arrived yet. Modern small arms were pretty much perfected though. The British Lee Enfield and German Mauser rifles were both accurate up to 600 meters and beyond in the hands of a good shooter. That the Enfield was in use all the way up to 1957 was testimony to the effectiveness of those simple bolt action rifle designs. Of course, trench warfare was also the stage where the machine gun finally came into its own. The British water cooled Maxim gun could spit out a flesh ripping 600 rounds per minute and sustain this for minutes or hours depending on a proper supply of water or piss. Arty too had developed to the point of precision accuracy, timed fuses, multiple shell trajectories, howitzers, air bursts, rolling barrages, all of that steel rain was pretty much perfected by this time.

This made for the worst kind of stalemate in military history.






Hell, you can go all the way back to Themistocles and a general would still have multiple unit types at his disposal; heavy infantry, ranged units and cavalry, giving a commander at least three unique elements to play around with when trying to defeat the enemy. But in 1914, you lost that fast moving cavalry unit (the first tanks would not come until Delville Wood in 1916) so all you had as a commander to play war with on your carnage planning desk was arty and sad meat sacks called men.

1914 was still early in the war. The British army was composed, at this stage, of elite non conscripted men. Real soldiers. Volunteers. (They hadn't all been wiped out yet). The German Schlieffen Plan had been attempted through Belgium and had failed spectacularly at the last minute. Yet it was still a 'fair war' at this stage. Even with the trenches being laid, the barbed wire, the arty strikes, it was still a war all soldiers could 'relate to' on some 'working class' level. With 'workers of the world unite' brewing in the East, there was a definite sense amongst the officer corps on both sides that they could lose control of their forces ideologically if fraternization were ever allowed to occur.

And then Christmas Eve 1914 rolled up.

And the war was still on like the newspapers had said it wouldn't be. I think this was the point where the average soldier on both sides realized they'd been duped. The situation in the trenches was taking on a permanency in winter that was starting to look like a really shitty long term deal for a soldier who was far from home with no personal grievance against the 'enemy'; except the one manufactured by Fox News hysterical propagandist newspaper headlines.

And then it happened...

The Germans in the trenches along the Western Front in Flanders received an influx of mini Christmas trees in wartime care packages from home (German supply lines being shorter than British ones). They lit their trees with candles and began singing traditional Christmas hymns (Tannenbaum) from the trenches on the other side of No Man's Land.

The British were confused.

Let's not get all fuzzy nostalgic here. The British had lost 94 men that day to German snipers all along the front. The Germans had lost similar numbers. This wasn't some outbreak of peace and love '60s style. This was a spontaneous Christmas celebration by the enemy in a trench across the way.

But the British got curious. Like any enemy would.

They popped their heads up over trench parapets to watch the lighted spectacle the Germans were putting on. Suddenly, signs began to appear from the opposing trenches in broken English.

"You no fight, we no fight! Tommy!"

That must have been a weird moment as the sun came up on the frost hardened mud of Christmas Day Flanders. The first man stood up and offered himself up to the snipers. But nobody fired. He was not shot. More men stood up, testing life itself at the hands of an easy bullet, for Christmas' sake. And then they began to march, from both sides, toward each other.

I'm getting misty now. Someone has begun chopping onions in my immediate vicinity. It's Christmas right?

Both sides met in the middle of no man's land

Smokes were swapped. Hands were shaken. Alcohol was shared. Helmets were sampled. A game of football was played on shell pocked land where, the story goes, the Germans won 3-2. This fabled match is recorded as hearsay in regimental histories, something that was witnessed but never actually recorded by the players. God, I hope it happened. I would like it to have happened in the same way that I would like that some Jewish baby born two thousand years ago can make me survive my own death. Both stories are equally unlikely but it doesn't spoil Christmas by wanting to believe in them.

The generals on both sides had a shit fit of course. How could it happen? How could ordinary men be friends with each other in the absence of state sponsored propaganda? It was never to happen again. The war got increasingly ugly and left everybody with scars. People wondered where had all the 'good' wars gone?

To No Man's Land?

Just the way the politicians, generals, and corporations always intended.


Merry fucking Christmas to you all.
 

Graney

Horse liberty
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
4,434
Location
Bereie
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Just out of curiosity, why do the majority of you believe that the invasion of Afghanistan was unjustified?
It's not in our national interest. It's not in the interest of many afghanis. It's not even in the US national interest, it's only in the self interest of political leadership.
 

funkshen

dvds didnt exist in 1991
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
2,137
Location
butt
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Australian soldiers cannot refuse a deployment order. It is exactly that - an order. The only way he/she can circumvent the order is to give cause as to why the deployment is inappropriate, illegitimate, etc. A soldier can demonstrate that he/she is a conscientious objector, can plead for compassion leave, etc. The list goes on. This applies for all those under active service and is an explicit condition of enlistment.

The punishment for disobeying a deployment order is, iirc, a maximum of 5 years imprisonment. I can't remember and can't be fucked to investigate but I believe the British still operate under the Manual of Military Law codified before World War 2. We used to operate under it before expressly developing our own military law. Under the Manual of Military Law disobeying an order (such as deployment) is punishable, at maximum, by death, but the practice for a long, long time has been to hand down a lesser sentence. I don't believe any military prosecutor in this day and age would dare to hand a death sentence down, but knowing how fucking loony British law can be, it's certainly a possibility.

The case for invasion of Afghanistan is far more persuasive than invasion of Iraq. Don't forget that the US is directly responsible for the formation of the Taliban, and Russia is in part to blame for the sordid state of affairs in Afghanistan after their retreat and the subsequent civil war. The hamfisted installation of a regime as corrupt as the Karzai government is a fucking horrible mistake, but I'm hardly surprised it happened. Afghanistan has been, for thousands of years, notorious for its embedded, ruthless and vicious tribal social order. Foolish bureaucrats, politicans, warmongers, and ignorant imperialists are thus ultimately to blame for thinking it was feasible to superimpose liberal democracy upon Afghanistan, given that its political and social environment is completely devoid of the institutions of liberty that are preconditions for healthy liberal democracy. But its far too much work to set up such institutions, so the neocon hope is that the imposition of democracy and removal of Sharia Law and Taliban government will create an environment conducive to the organic growth of these institutions. History will either vindicate such a belief, or not. It's crude and lamentable that the proud Afghans are seemingly pawns in this historical experiment, but at least they can shave their beards now.

edit: Both Afghanistan and Iraq are classic cases of liberal interventionism (a fundamental neocon value). What do you all think the differences are between the Iraq/Afghanistan cases and the intervention in the former Yugoslavia? (Honest question) Both were NATO deployments, (roughly) two Yugoslavian deployments under the Clinton administration (not noted for pursuing a neocon agenda), and two under the Bush administration (mostly noted for pursuing a neocon agenda). The results of the two are incredibly different. I look forward to davidbarnes' response.
 
Last edited:

Graney

Horse liberty
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
4,434
Location
Bereie
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
The soldiers as heroes meme was created as a tool for governments to delegitimize criticism of war, also used by veterans/the military establishment to reinforce their own power base, basic rent seeking.
 

funkshen

dvds didnt exist in 1991
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
2,137
Location
butt
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
What a robust and thoughtful analysis. I'd say that it's in part applicable to the modern soldier-hero meme, but the historical context of the meme is far more complex. I think, in part, it is also attributable to the social attitudes regarding active service during World War I/II, which we largely adopted from the motherland, Britain. White feathers!
 

Azure

Premium Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Messages
5,681
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
The soldiers as heroes meme was created as a tool for governments to delegitimize criticism of war, also used by veterans/the military establishment to reinforce their own power base, basic rent seeking.
Have to wait to spread rep, but this is an awesome post.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top