Positive move

Quoted from Marinerz93

The difference between HM Forces and any other civilian occupation goes further than just a paid job.  A service personnels life isn't their own, he/she can not turn down working extra hours, can not refuse to go some where they are told to go, they have no choice of living conditions or living standards and they certainly can not plan in the long term i.e.; holidays or family celebrations and that's speaking from 22 years HM Forces experience. So how you are trying to say is just a paid job beggars belief.

Not really. You can just choose not to join the armed forces. So all of that is part of your pay packet.

Quoted Text

The Forces act on Parliamentary polices and they are the polices you allowed to be made because of your voting rights in a democratic society, if they are legally questionable why haven't any MP's or Prime Minsters been prosecuted.

Do I really have to go into that in full? Because in various instances there have been prosecutions to no avail, against various armed forces of various countries. We know the American training and creation of the South American Contras in Nicaragua was a war crime (it was proven in an international law court). We know Israel has more United Nations sanctions against it than any other nation. We know Bloody Sunday killed 13 innocent men and women. We pretty much know the Iraq war used intelligence services to "support" an already decided policy rather than provide reliable information on the situation (a great book by ex-MI5 intelligence gatherer Brian Jones called "Failing Intelligence" is well worth a read). Going further back, the use of chemical gas against civilian populations in the Middle East. The Dresden bombing. I could go on. There simply isn't any realistic jurisriction over superpowers, be they Western or not (these listed cases are war crimes that were committed by "Western" forces because it's more relevant to what we're debating, not because I am using selective bias).

Quoted Text

I would like to see you ask the Para who lost 3 limbs in Afghanistan why he deserves more heroic treatment than other government sector workers.

This is what I mean, complete jingoist nonsense. I would feel very sorry for said man or woman, as I would anyone who had suffered that, be it through a cause of armed conflict or a car crash. It doesn't mean I'd have any qualms about asking them that particular question though, as it is perfectly valid.

Quoted Text

Still several service personnel died for you to have those insular views, each to their own, I volunteer is better than 10 pressed men.

Really? I'm not sure opposing blind support of what has all-too-often been used as an imperialist geo-political force could be described as insular, in fact, and somewhat ironically, I think your perspective on the role of our foreign policy in the modern world could be described as "insular".

I would also contest that since WW2, I'm not sure anyone has died in conflicts for me to hold my views. 130,000 civilians in Iraq have died though, for a war to protect what? Not our freedom, and not out of any genuine interest in ending the horrendous abuses of Sadam Hussein - if we used our military to stop horrendous human rights abuses and genocides, they'd be in half the countries in the world.

Your posts are exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. If we're not careful we'll slide into a completely Americanised situation, where opposing a extremely dubious foreign war results in accusations of being un-patriotic and against our troops.

Quoted from Marinerz93

I did read the previous posters comments as slightly derogatory but, thought it more of one of ignorance.

No, I just obviously have a different world view than yourself. Not sure that makes either you or me ignorant.

Quoted from MarinerWY

No, I just obviously have a different world view than yourself. Not sure that makes either you or me ignorant.

I've been all over the world and seen first hand the difference our Forces have made to the world.  You will only read or see watered down media what is really going on / in and around the world.  I feel you are ignorant to what being a service person is.

Quoted from Marinerz93

I've been all over the world and seen first hand the difference our Forces have made to the world.  You will only read or see watered down media what is really going on / in and around the world.  I feel you are ignorant to what being a service person is.

So your participation as part of one side of global conflicts (more often than not the occupier), obviously gives you a completely unbiased perspective on things, and therefore the opinions and reports of others, including human rights observers, ex-soldiers, ex- secret services workers, aid workers, victims, affected communities and various different sources of information are "watered down".

Your experience on the ground is of course a valuable source of information, but it is not a holistic perspective, nor does it nullify the reports and perspectives of others (regardless of whether they also share direct experience or not).

Your arguments hold no weight, I'm afraid. And you haven't addressed the majority of my points in my previous post.

Quoted from MarinerWY

Not really. You can just choose not to join the armed forces. So all of that is part of your pay packet.

Has got to be the lowest paid job in the world then for what you sign away.

Do I really have to go into that in full? Because in various instances there have been prosecutions to no avail, against various armed forces of various countries. We know the American training and creation of the South American Contras in Nicaragua was a war crime (it was proven in an international law court). We know Israel has more United Nations sanctions against it than any other nation. We know Bloody Sunday killed 13 innocent men and women. We pretty much know the Iraq war used intelligence services to "support" an already decided policy rather than provide reliable information on the situation (a great book by ex-MI5 intelligence gatherer Brian Jones called "Failing Intelligence" is well worth a read). Going further back, the use of chemical gas against civilian populations in the Middle East. The Dresden bombing. I could go on. There simply isn't any realistic jurisriction over superpowers, be they Western or not (these listed cases are war crimes that were committed by "Western" forces because it's more relevant to what we're debating, not because I am using selective bias).

Bloody Sunday, the rioting before hand soldiers used a water cannon, tear gas and rubber bullets, it was only when the intelligence came in that an IRA sniper was in the area that live ammunition was issued.  What do you think would happen if the soldiers were over run and had their weapons taken off them.  The details of Bloody Sunday will always be vague and counter arguments from both sides.

The Dresden Bombing was retaliation for the blitz on England.  It was all out war and boundaries had already been broken, a message had to be sent.

Who are you talking about chemical gas against civilians?  

I would also contest that since WW2, I'm not sure anyone has died in conflicts for me to hold my views. 130,000 civilians in Iraq have died though, for a war to protect what? Not our freedom, and not out of any genuine interest in ending the horrendous abuses of Sadam Hussein - if we used our military to stop horrendous human rights abuses and genocides, they'd be in half the countries in the world.

So you are saying that US and UK Forces killed all 130,000 of these civilians, Shi'a and Sunni didn't kill any?

Your posts are exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. If we're not careful we'll slide into a completely Americanised situation, where opposing a extremely dubious foreign war results in accusations of being un-patriotic and against our troops.

I didn't call you un-patriotic, but I do feel that your under valuing of service personnel and the type of work they do, sees you as a conscientious objector and using that ideology to back up your views.

Quoted from MarinerWY

So your participation as part of one side of global conflicts (more often than not the occupier), obviously gives you a completely unbiased perspective on things, and therefore the opinions and reports of others, including human rights observers, ex-soldiers, ex- secret services workers, aid workers, victims, affected communities and various different sources of information are "watered down".

Your experience on the ground is of course a valuable source of information, but it is not a holistic perspective, nor does it nullify the reports and perspectives of others (regardless of whether they also share direct experience or not).

Your arguments hold no weight, I'm afraid. And you haven't addressed the majority of my points in my previous post.

You have no idea how much intelligence and information we have before deploying.  You have no idea how much intelligence and information we get whilst we are deployed.  The modern day service person is more in tune with what is going on than at any time in history.  I've worked with intelligence units, specialist units and supported medical staff when they have treated victims.  The information that gets back to the UK is watered down, fact and you don't get anywhere near the amount of intelligence or information that a deployed service person gets, that's pretty obvious.

I addressed your previous post, I find it very selective to suit your point of view.

Quoted from Marinerz93

Are you saying they haven't been invited and it's a military coup  

I appreciate your view but you can't just decide on a Monday that you're not going into work because you've had enough or you are going to work for someone else.  My point being, it isn't just a paid job because your life isn't your own and you do not have the same choices as a civilian does.  You can not compare them as the same.

The advertising of jobs is to inform a generation who knows very little about modern day HM Forces. Years ago the majority of people in this country either knew someone or had family members serving in the Forces.  If there isn't enough volunteers what do you think the government will do.

I did read the previous posters comments as slightly derogatory but, thought it more of one of ignorance.

Ever since I can remember (i.e. back to the 60s and therefore shortly after the era of National Service) advertising for the armed forces has been just that. Advertising. Advertising emphasising the career opportunities or excitement. A few years back during the height of Iraq/Afghan conflicts, there were even veiled references to the opportunity for some real fighting. It's never been about "informing". You might get more information when you got into the process, but all you got/get from the adverts was/is "it's good for the skiing/dashing around in fast boats".

Well they aren't going to advertise the days on end sat in the tea-bar waiting for something to happen, standing in the wind and rain guarding tents in a field, getting shouted at by some old guy who's been in 30 years because your sideburns and hair are too long or having your bedroom inspected annually and being told you are beneath dogshit because they found some dust behind your radiator etc etc etc are they?

Quoted from KingstonMariner

Ever since I can remember (i.e. back to the 60s and therefore shortly after the era of National Service) advertising for the armed forces has been just that. Advertising. Advertising emphasising the career opportunities or excitement. A few years back during the height of Iraq/Afghan conflicts, there were even veiled references to the opportunity for some real fighting. It's never been about "informing". You might get more information when you got into the process, but all you got/get from the adverts was/is "it's good for the skiing/dashing around in fast boats".

I was talking to a recruiter at a the Liverpool Town show summer 2010 (Forces event) and I asked him why my trade was under manned at the time.  He went into a spiel about required figures then adjusted figures which meant there was always going to be a short fall.  I asked him why they didn't advertise more and he said there was no need, that they get more people wanting to join when ever there is conflict involving the UK.  The adverts are just informing people of the jobs available because less people have involvement with the Forces.  That was the view of the recruiters.

He asked me where I was from and when I told him Grimsby his eyes lit up, he said that Grimsby is in the top 3 places when there is a conflict on, that people join or want to HM Forces.

Quoted from Marinerz93

He asked me where I was from and when I told him Grimsby his eyes lit up, he said that Grimsby is in the top 3 places when there is a conflict on, that people join or want to HM Forces.

At Benson there was 40 blokes on my shift and 4 of us lived within half a mile of each other up here.