Ed Showing disrespect for her own son?

No, but she's an idiot.

Her son was in the army, and we went to war. It genuinely doesn't matter if the war was just, he was a soldier going into a combat zone. They know the risks, they know that they are called to fight and die for their country.

She may not be pissing on the grave of her son, but she typifies the stupid attitude to war that people have now. There is shock and anger when a soldier is killed, far more than there really should be. Now don't get me wrong, every loss of life is a tragedy, and I'm no supporter of the Iraq war, but my god people, the clue is in the name. The Iraq War. People die in wars. Today, far less people, civilians and soldiers alike die in wars (for the most part) because of a variety of circumstnaces, upgrades in technology and a general difference in how a war is fought, but people will always die in war.

Why is this such a shock that the death of a soldier prompts things like this? Why is it that a person who trained and was paid to kill and die for his country being sent to a warzone with active hostiles cannot be left to do their job and die on their job (a noted risk, unlike in say, carpentry) without it creating such ire, often from people who don't even support the damn soldiers. I don't much like the war but now we're there I hope we CAN sort out the place. I don't hold out much hope, and frankly I think it was a massive error of judgement but I damn well support our soldiers because they are paid to do a job most keyboard warriors would be terrified to do, myself included.

By all means, investigate the damn war, but it is a WAR. Don't be shocked when your soldier son or daughter, or maybe even spouse is killed there. It's insane.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Why is it that a person who trained and was paid to kill and die for his country being sent to a warzone with active hostiles cannot be left to do their job and die on their job (a noted risk, unlike in say, carpentry) without it creating such ire, often from people who don't even support the damn soldiers.
Click to expand...

In what sense did her son "die for his country"?
 
I suppose it depends on how he died. If he died while actively fighting an enemy or protecting his fellow soldiers, that would be construed as fitting the criterion of dying for one's country - helping to protect the nation from being invaded by those who would invade our homes, steal our women, bomb our sheep, etc. If he died in a road accident, it would be hard to see that as dying for one's country.

I think it gets really difficult if you're engaged in a country you're not technically at war with, where you're not fighting the majority of the citizenry, but a violent minority.
 
Cainkane1 said:
Theres mistakes in every profession. When soldiers make mistakes someone suffers or dies. Its a fact of life.
Click to expand...
It doesn't always take a mistake for a soldier to die in combat. Sometimes, all it takes is the greater skill of one enemy soldier. This is also a fact of life.
 
commandlinegamer said:
I suppose it depends on how he died. If he died while actively fighting an enemy or protecting his fellow soldiers, that would be construed as fitting the criterion of dying for one's country
Click to expand...

From your link JJ:

Donnachie, from Reading, Berkshire, who served with 2nd Battalion The Rifles, was killed by small arms fire during a routine patrol in the Ashar district of Basra City on 29 April, two years ago, during one of the worst periods of fighting in the area since the start of the conflict.
Click to expand...
 
In the future do we need to get permission slips from the parents of all soldiers before sending them off into a battle?
 
Travis said:
In the future do we need to get permission slips from the parents of all soldiers before sending them off into a battle?
Click to expand...
No need to wait for the future; we already do get permission slips from the parents. And the soldiers. And everybody else in the country. We tally them all up, and then delegate decision-making duties to a small number of citizens based on the results of the tally, Our delegates focus on these duties full-time* while the rest of us get on with our lives.

It isn't so much that we should get permission slips from the parents, it's that some people feel that, for whatever reason, their opinions should be worth more than the opinions of everybody else around them, and they get all butthurt when they are forced to confront the fact that they don't actually have more of a say than anybody else.





* Well, okay, technically they also spend a lot of time focusing on renewing their selection as delegates, but so far nobody has come up with a better system.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Her son was in the army, and we went to war. It genuinely doesn't matter if the war was just, he was a soldier going into a combat zone. They know the risks, they know that they are called to fight and die for their country.
Click to expand...

So if a political leader sends soldiers into a combat zone for blatantly improper reasons, there should be no repercussions at all?

Interesting. With "normal" government actions, if the government does something blatantly improper -- sometimes even illegal -- the people affected have recourse. Ministers have even gone to prison for misuse of their office.

But I guess that only applies if the ministers take money and properly. Taking lives is just fine.

What an interesting double standard.
 
Soldiers can refuse to follow an unlawful order, the key thing being damn sure it's unlawful.

While some may argue against the ethics and reasons for the war in Iraq, it is lawful.
 
Alareth said:
Soldiers can refuse to follow an unlawful order, the key thing being damn sure it's unlawful.

While some may argue against the ethics and reasons for the war in Iraq, it is lawful.
Click to expand...

Being "lawful" is not the same as being "proper."

Consider the following case; the Drkitten Armaments Firm outright bribes a number of MPs to declare war on Ruritania. The resulting war would be "lawful" in the sense that soldiers would be compelled to obey deployment orders.

Should the MPs be subject to charges for accepting these bribes?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
No, but she's an idiot.

Her son was in the army, and we went to war. It genuinely doesn't matter if the war was just, he was a soldier going into a combat zone. They know the risks, they know that they are called to fight and die for their country.
Click to expand...

I don't see any problem with a parent criticizing what they see as an unjust or unnecessary war, and quite properly claiming that the person(s) who decided to wage war are responsible for their kid's death. If we'd gone to war with a reincarnated Nazi Germany instead of Iraq she may see it as a good decision and believed her son died for a good cause. She doesn't, so yes, she has the right to strongly question why her son died.

Her son bears responsibility for joining the army/not going AWOL, but the decider to send him into combat bears responsibility as well. And certainly should be prepared to defend the decision, or face consequences if the decision was poor. That's kind of obvious.
 
drkitten said:
So if a political leader sends soldiers into a combat zone for blatantly improper reasons, there should be no repercussions at all?

Interesting. With "normal" government actions, if the government does something blatantly improper -- sometimes even illegal -- the people affected have recourse. Ministers have even gone to prison for misuse of their office.

But I guess that only applies if the ministers take money and properly. Taking lives is just fine.

What an interesting double standard.
Click to expand...

Please point out where I said this. Anywhere at all.

I was merely stating that the fact that this has become such an issue today is a problem, not so much that Tony Blair shouldn't be prosecuted.
 
We can say pissing now?

JihadJane said:
In what sense did her son "die for his country"?
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is what I hate about westerners' fetish for hero-worshipping soldiers.

As long as I put on a certain uniform and allege only an intention to serve my country, I'm automatically a hero. Even if I made no difference. Even if I did nothing about my fellow soldiers murdering, torturing, and raping civilians, non-combatants, and prisoners.

On 9/11 this year, I called out these douchebags on Facebook, using my aunt Erna as an example, for saying we should take a time out to thank 'troops' -- "for what they do for us every day."

Soldiers didn't do bunk on September 11, 2001, mmkay? And nothing soldiers have done since has contributed in any way to our continued safety and/or freedom.

Every terrorist plot foiled was done by federal agents of the FBI or similar organization, and almost always not by us but instead a UK equivalent.

As for 9/11/01 itself, the people you should appreciate for their actions are the employees of the fire departments, police departments, construction workers who could operate machinery to move rubble, and many other civilians to went into action to save people from the demolition.

Did my aunt Erna say anything about them? Does anybody, if they think we went to Iraq/Afghanistan because of al qaeda? Of course not.

And don't you think people had reasons for joining the military outside of the Iraq war, before 9/11? I'm pretty sure they did. What about those soldiers?

----

Is this woman pissing on her son's grave? No, she's pissing on the graves of innocent casualties. Blair is just additionally pissing on that guy's grave.
 
I'll probably get flamed for this, but...

While, yes, there's an expectation that a member of the military could wind up being killed in the line of duty, the greater question here from the link in the OP is whether Tony Blair sent troops into Iraq in accordance with the claims made, and if said action was reasonable in light of what was and is now known. The Yellowcake information, we've learned, was not information at all: it was debunked, and found to be fraudulent. (No, I'm not being redundant here.)

There are serious questions as to whether we should have gone to war in Iraq, particularly as it's now becoming apparent that most of our efforts should have been concentrated in removing the Taliban and Al Quaeda in Afghanistan. I don't think she's "pissing on her son's grave." I think she's got some serious questions as to whether there was some serious malfeasance in office on Blair's part, or if he was simply misled, or incompetent. We simply don't know enough, and while the cost in human life is rather small, (or at least as small as it could be), she's asking if this cost was worth paying at all, given what we're now learning.

I'm not prepared to speak of absolutes yet. But, dammit, the more I read of this conflict, the more I'm convinced we were deceived. Why, and for whose benefit, I have yet to figure out, but this woman is no Cindy Sheehan. Trust me on that.
 
Aerik said:
We can say pissing now?



Exactly. This is what I hate about westerners' fetish for hero-worshipping soldiers.

As long as I put on a certain uniform and allege only an intention to serve my country, I'm automatically a hero. Even if I made no difference. Even if I did nothing about my fellow soldiers murdering, torturing, and raping civilians, non-combatants, and prisoners.

On 9/11 this year, I called out these douchebags on Facebook, using my aunt Erna as an example, for saying we should take a time out to thank 'troops' -- "for what they do for us every day."

Soldiers didn't do bunk on September 11, 2001, mmkay? And nothing soldiers have done since has contributed in any way to our continued safety and/or freedom.

Every terrorist plot foiled was done by federal agents of the FBI or similar organization, and almost always not by us but instead a UK equivalent.

As for 9/11/01 itself, the people you should appreciate for their actions are the employees of the fire departments, police departments, construction workers who could operate machinery to move rubble, and many other civilians to went into action to save people from the demolition.

Did my aunt Erna say anything about them? Does anybody, if they think we went to Iraq/Afghanistan because of al qaeda? Of course not.

And don't you think people had reasons for joining the military outside of the Iraq war, before 9/11? I'm pretty sure they did. What about those soldiers?

----

Is this woman pissing on her son's grave? No, she's pissing on the graves of innocent casualties. Blair is just additionally pissing on that guy's grave.
Click to expand...

I would beg to differ, but you already know that.

But, yes, I'd agree, our military didn't do anything to stop 9/11.

And one more point: I spent November and December of 2001 with a sign in the back of my car window that said, "Where was your patriotism on September 10?"

You can imagine the number of times I got the bird. And the number of knowing nods I got, too.
 
Roadtoad said:
I would beg to differ, but you already know that.

But, yes, I'd agree, our military didn't do anything to stop 9/11.

And one more point: I spent November and December of 2001 with a sign in the back of my car window that said, "Where was your patriotism on September 10?"

You can imagine the number of times I got the bird. And the number of knowing nods I got, too.
Click to expand...

This is a good point. I recall people standing on street corners holding candles shortly after 9/11. I found myself wondering where will these people be 6mos or a year from now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom