Armed Forces Obsession

W

wsionynw

Master Queef
Valued Senior Member
As I'm only 31 years old I can't say if this has always been the case or not but it seems to me that in recent years, at least since the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks the USA and UK media are obsessed with the well being of people serving in the armed forces and their families.

I know what you're thinking "well duh, we are at war", I know this but the USA and UK have had our armed forces deployed all over the world for decades in one capacity or another.

My question is what makes people in the armed forces so special? Is their work more important than that of the intelligence agencies, police, fire fighters, paramedics, doctors ,school teachers, university professors? :confused:

My suspicion is that certain media outlets are whipping up this pro-armed forces sentiment to further their political views. Obvious perhaps, but then if it is so obvious why are so many swallowing this? I have friends, work colleagues and even members of my own family that have suddenly decided the men and women serving in the Army, Navy and Air Force are the most selfess, wonderful and badly treated individuals in the country, based on nothing more than a few headlines in the newspapers. What is going on?
 
It's not just the media. The ambo's and fire fighters ( along with nurses and other health and community service workers) recently had there benifits if they are killed or injured cut while there is increasing benifis given even to non combat defense personal. They might never even be in any danger while the Emergency services are at risk evertime the pager goes.off
 
It's supply and demand. The number of people stupid enough to take a gun into war, when that war is utterly immoral, and face being shot by people who resent their country being invaded, is .....

I mean, are you stupid enough?
 
Maybe it makes them feel secure.
 
I just resent the media treating servicemen and women like they had no choice to join up, that they really are doing it to fight for 'our' freedom. It's largely bullshit.
 
I was only 12 when the 9/11 attack happened and when we went to war with the Middle East and I remember a lot of people were really angry about the US going to war, but I guess to keep another Vietnam from happening, there was a big push for people to direct their frustrations appropriately and not at the soldiers. However I don't really get the feeling that people value soldiers more so than other service workers who put their lives on the line to protect their fellow citizens. I've heard the same about firefighters and police officers. While doctors and teachers do a great deal for society the sacrifice isn't the same, they rarely die in the line of duty. The intelligence agencies really don't get the appreciation they deserve though...
 
SilentLi89 said:
I was only 12 when the 9/11 attack happened and when we went to war with the Middle East and I remember a lot of people were really angry about the US going to war, but I guess to keep another Vietnam from happening, there was a big push for people to direct their frustrations appropriately and not at the soldiers. However I don't really get the feeling that people value soldiers more so than other service workers who put their lives on the line to protect their fellow citizens. I've heard the same about firefighters and police officers. While doctors and teachers do a great deal for society the sacrifice isn't the same, they rarely die in the line of duty. The intelligence agencies really don't get the appreciation they deserve though...
Click to expand...

I'm assuming this is to me.

Firstly I wasn't refering to teachers, social workers, child Pprotection workers, drug and alcohol and mental Health workers have really high levels of assult. Secondly doctors and nurses in A&E especially late at night are facing increasing levels of violence, this isn't always criminal ( like people having psycotic breaks and other health reasons) but just because its not criminal doesn't mean its not a constant risk which isn't faced by uniformed solders who are never deployed. Thirdly in South Australia intiltlments for Health and Emergency service workers are the exact same benifits given to office workers and they were recently slashed. Compare that to vet affairs pentions and gold cards which don't even require active service in some cases, just a set number of paoints for minor work place injuries and they end up higher than the benifits paid to the partners of ambos and fire fighters killed on the job
 
Last edited:
Basically to extrapolate a US example, who deserves more compensation

1) a worker killed fleeing from trade towers
2) an ambo who ran into trade towers to help the people inside
3) an army adminstrater who has never served overseas and has got 1000 paper cuts
 
I hear at least one public service message on the radio during each half hour commercial break. Often it amounts to three or four in an hour's time.

The latest involves someone injured by sniper fire, and how they are having difficulties getting on in life. Mentioned, but conveniently skirted around, is something about not getting "full benefits" from the government that promised them.

While this propaganda campaign serves more than one purpose I am sure, maybe it is a subtle way for government to skimp on the veteran's benefits and disability assistance by convincing others to pick up the tab?
 
wsionynw said:
I just resent the media treating servicemen and women like they had no choice to join up, that they really are doing it to fight for 'our' freedom. It's largely bullshit.
Click to expand...

Well, it's either volunteer, or draft. I think the motive of the person is what counts.

On the other hand, there is definitely an abused sentimentality that says that dying in the line of duty is the highest honor of a patriot, which usually says nothing about the reason or cause for the death or sacrifice. This is the heart of the matter, as far as the topic of this thread goes.

Of course, there was the "if you don't vote to increase funding for the war, soldiers will die" therefore, without saying it directly, being against the war became the equivalent of killing Americans. In a way, military personnel have become emotional bargaining chips.

"Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists." This statement sums up the mentality of the larger picture of the wars, the American Gestapo Homeland Security, and the definition of America and Constitutional freedom.
 
Giambattista said:
....
While this propaganda campaign serves more than one purpose I am sure, maybe it is a subtle way for government to skimp on the veteran's benefits and disability assistance by convincing others to pick up the tab?
Click to expand...

I think you've nailed it. There is a lot of talk in media (in Canada, too) about 'our brave' this and 'heroic' that, it's pretty much all talk. For example, a Canadian university set up a scholarship for the children of fallen soldiers - nothing for the children who have to live with injured or emotionally damaged parents, you understand, just the orphans - with the encouragement of, but no financial help from government. For example, a piece of highway was renamed for the coffins that pass along it - at no cost to government.

In the US, too, soldiers get all kinds of run-around if they need medical treatment, and all kinds of grief, should they need psychological treatment, or have anything chronic. Problems with post-service employment, insurance, pension.... I've heard many sad stories; can't say how much is true, but i believe there is more sentimental talk than effective action on behalf of military personnel. Well, what does it tell you when a serving combat soldier's family asks to have its tumble-down house rebuilt by a television show?

(This seems to be a recurring theme in empires, by the way.)
 
wsionynw said:
I just resent the media treating servicemen and women like they had no choice to join up, that they really are doing it to fight for 'our' freedom. It's largely bullshit.
Click to expand...

So does that mean we should be any less concerned about their well-being? I don't think so. People are actively trying to kill them, unlike most other professions.
 
spidergoat said:
So does that mean we should be any less concerned about their well-being? I don't think so. People are actively trying to kill them, unlike most other professions.
Click to expand...

Certainly not less, but why more? I don't like the media guilt trip and oneupmanship (our patriotic headline is bigger than yours) that is constantly being rolled out. What I hate most of all is that so many people swallow it and then puke it back out as if it was their own idea. :mad:
Politicians don't help matters, trying to win votes by stating their pride and love for the armed forces, when the closest they've been to a war is having a photo op' holding a machine gun.
 
Because we as a nation sent them there. I agree that the patriotism is way overdone, and that all those "support the troops" bumper stickers don't mean anything.
 
Lots of professions are highly dangerous. I do not think it matters how someone dies. If they are shot by the enemy, or fall off a high building they are working on, the end result is the same.

Nor do I have that much sympathy for soldiers. Too many simply follow orders, and go into battle to kill people regardless of the morality of the war. The old saw of "my country right or wrong" is definitely wrong, wrong, wrong. If your country is in the wrong, you have a duty to oppose it.

Ever hear the song : The Universal Soldier? ( abridged to avoid violating copyright)

"He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four,
He fights with missiles and with spears.
He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen,
Been a soldier for a thousand years.

He'a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.


.......

And he's fighting for Canada,
He's fighting for France,
He's fighting for the USA,
And he's fighting for the Russians,
And he's fighting for Japan,
And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.

And he's fighting for Democracy,
He's fighting for the Reds,
He says it's for the peace of all.


........

He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame,
His orders come from far away no more,
They come from here and there and you and me,
And brothers can't you see,
This is not the way we put the end to war".
 
I agree to a point and that points born out by another question which came out of the 11/9, ie what is a hero. Sure it doesn't matter weather you fall off a ladder or get killed in a car crash but the Emergency services don't just die because of industrial acidents. They deliberately put themselves in danger to help others and this should be taken into acount. A fire fighter who gets trapped in a fire trying to save a child, an ambo who refuses to leave a pt and gets liked, an SES volly who drowns while trying to save someone from a flooded river, these should be recognized as above and beond simply being an industrial acident.
 
I certainly agree that heroism - that is, assuming the risk of injury and death in an attempt to save others - deserves a good deal of respect. We depend on rescue-workers in an emergency, and their daily life is often in danger. We owe them the best possible training, support and equipment.

Soldiers are often in emergency situations, by the nature of their work. They often exhibit heroic altruism, both toward their comrades and toward accidental victims of war. Often, too, soldiers participate in looting, rape, torture, and massacre of civilians. I have no objection to the awarding of medals for heroism or to military burial ceremonies.

I do find it distasteful when the vicious and brutal receive the reverential same lip-service from the national press as the valiant and honourable.
 
See that's not what I'm talking about, criminal acts deserve criminal penelty and I have nothing against those who have served in armed conflicts and been killed or injured being rewarded. What I'm saying is that the ambo in the senario gets the SAME in south Australia as the office worker who is fleeing the building and both get a lot less than the ADF worker who has never seen conflict but has happened to get a who Heep of minor industrial injuries ( sure papercuts was rediculas but it was there to shop a point )
 
Also, for some reason the UK media are now calling it an act of terrorism when the Taliban kill British or US troops.
I have NO love for the Taliban, but it must be true that the word terrorist is now being hijacked for political purposes (sorry if I state the obvious).
 
Asguard said:
See that's not what I'm talking about, criminal acts deserve criminal penelty and I have nothing against those who have served in armed conflicts and been killed or injured being rewarded. What I'm saying is that the ambo in the senario gets the SAME in south Australia as the office worker who is fleeing the building and both get a lot less than the ADF worker who has never seen conflict but has happened to get a who Heep of minor industrial injuries ( sure papercuts was rediculas but it was there to shop a point )
Click to expand...

My objection was to the good and bad soldiers receiving equal respect from media and government organs.
What you object to - if i understand it correctly - is pay-scale variables, wherein an inactive officer (?ADF) is paid more than a paramedic (?ambo).
In that area, why stop at the armed forces? A welder, electrician or crane operator faces more danger and gets less money than the building contractor who supervises them, who gets less than the developer who hired him. For that matter, the window washer risks more and gets less than the executive in the corner office. It's just, nobody talks about those people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top