That pointless and shameful war

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

As Dave 'does the talking', war dead are sneaked out of the back gate


http://anmblog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c565553ef014e89635109970d-500wi



The flag-wrapped coffins of dead servicemen are to be driven out of the back gate of RAF Brize Norton when it takes over from Lyneham (a few weeks from now) as the arrival point for the fallen.

They will then be routed down side roads to avoid nearby Carterton – a town almost exactly the same size as Wootton Bassett – and make their way to the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford along A-roads and bypasses. There’ll be a small guard of honour near the hospital entrance (there already is) but somehow or other the cortege won’t go down any High Streets.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_X9Y4HViVc



I will tell you in a moment what the official excuses are for this. I should have thought the mere words ‘back gate’ would tell most people all they need to know about this decision. And despite the Prime Minister’s oily award of the title ‘Royal’ to Wootton Bassett, you can bet that he’d much rather the public scenes of grief and remembrance in that place had never happened, and that nobody noticed the frequent deaths his weakness and political cowardice are causing.

In the same way, the Defence Ministry has almost completely succeeded in covering up the appalling numbers of men who have been gravely injured in Afghanistan because the Government hasn’t the guts to quit this meaningless war. We hardly ever see them. Were they all to be assembled in one photograph, the nation would demand instant withdrawal and probably get it. The official version is that the families of the dead will be using a new ‘Repatriation Centre’ at Brize Norton, and that it is near the back gate. Routing the hearses through the base might disrupt its normal operations.

And here’s what was said by Andrew Robathan, whose stirring title is ‘Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans’. Speaking to Radio Oxford, he explained: ‘The side gate was seen by the Ministry of Defence and the police as the most appropriate way to take out future corteges.’ I love that word ‘appropriate’, the favourite adjective of those who have quietly forsaken the idea that there are such things as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.

He continued: ‘I am not sure taking coffins in hearses past schools, past families, past married quarters is necessarily the thing that everybody would wish to see .  .  . the focus must be on the families of the dead service personnel. They are the people who care most. That is where our focus is.’ This is a curious statement. None of us exactly ‘wishes’ to see a funeral going by. But surely death should not be hidden away. And surely it is right that all of us – especially the young and service families – should be reminded of the price of courage and duty, and given the opportunity to salute these fine things.

You can believe the various official excuses. Or you might recall that until (in April 2008) this newspaper highlighted the way the hearses were left to fight their way through indifferent traffic, even cut up by impatient motorists at roundabouts, they did not get a police escort for the final few miles to the hospital. Mr Cameron says that he will do the talking about war, and the commanders should do the fighting. Well, he may have a point there, or he would if he were not militarily and diplomatically clueless.

But he might also mention that while he is doing the talking, real men are doing the dying, and their families are doing the weeping. Personally, I don’t think he or his Government colleagues are grown-up enough to pay the price of their own vanity and bombast. So they sneak the dead out by the back gate, and hope it doesn’t get on the TV.

What a disgrace this government is as is the last, involving us in wars which do not concern us and creeping us into yet another war in Libya in which I warned would end up as a 'mission creep' and it has - NATO are now aiming to kill Gaddafi (who was a friend of the west until we thought he was toast back in the Spring) which is way out of their UN resolution remit.

We had one war in which our Prime Minister and government lied to us about in order to involve us in, with an opposition party (the Conservatives) which failed to do their job and oppose is on the grounds it was a blantant lie - we also now have a war in Afghanistan in which we prop up a corrupt government whilst the mission has no achieveable aim or ending and to top that off we have a new war opening in Libya in which we are supporting the opposition to our former friend purely on the grounds that we thought he was toast, turned our backs on him and he managed to fight back making us look the fools.

To top that off, the United States is drone bombing Yemen and Pakistan killing many innocents and we stand there and wonder why Al Qaeda is so successful in stirring up hatred against the west.

What are our troops dying for? why are we in Libya? what concern of ours is Afghanistan? thoughts?

[Jordy]

The media will still report the deaths of servicemen and the arrival of their bodies in the UK regardless of whether they go through a village or not.

Strikes me as a ridiculous conspiracy theory all this "its being done through the backdoor to protect Cameron", it's bad enough people write such drivel nevermind believe it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The media will still report the deaths of servicemen and the arrival of their bodies in the UK regardless of whether they go through a village or not.

Nobody disputes that, we're talking here about when the war dead touchdown on British soil.


Strikes me as a ridiculous conspiracy theory all this "its being done through the backdoor to protect Cameron", it's bad enough people write such drivel nevermind believe it.

Or is it that they are rightly ashamed of this war? why are war dead being driven down back alleyways?

Not a conspiracy at all, just a cowardly government with its shameful war/s, the key part being;


‘I am not sure taking coffins in hearses past schools, past families, past married quarters is necessarily the thing that everybody would wish to see .  .  . the focus must be on the families of the dead service personnel. They are the people who care most. That is where our focus is.’ This is a curious statement. None of us exactly ‘wishes’ to see a funeral going by. But surely death should not be hidden away.Why are government ministers so keen to hide the war dead?

[Jordy]

Nobody disputes that, we're talking here about when the war dead touchdown on British soil.

Or is it that they are rightly ashamed of this war? why are war dead being driven down back alleyways?

Not a conspiracy at all, just a cowardly government with its shameful war/s, the key part being;

Why are government ministers so keen to hide the war dead?They're not hiding the war dead seeing as the people of Britain will know about the deaths of military personnel whatever route they take. It's a complete conspiracy theory that they are purposefully avoiding villages so that people won't know personnel are dying and the government won't look bad. What evidence is there to support this other than something far-fetched? The alleyways reference for instance...

In this country we don't parade around the dead anyway, they went through Wooton Bassett because it was the route from the RAF base to the hospital (much like this is). It's all just going from A to B, the journey taken allows for people to of course pay their respects to the dead but it's not the point of the journey. What do you propose? Taking a detour through London past the BBC, ITN and Sky News studios just so everyone see's that people are dying in Afghanistan (When everybody knows that it's unfortunately going on anyway).

[Shar]

I have no idea why we're in Afghanistan anymore, I don't get why we were in there in the first place, it was not an absolute necessity.

[-:Undertaker:-]

They're not hiding the war dead seeing as the people of Britain will know about the deaths of military personnel whatever route they take. It's a complete conspiracy theory that they are purposefully avoiding villages so that people won't know personnel are dying and the government won't look bad. What evidence is there to support this other than something far-fetched? The alleyways reference for instance...

Yes they are, the images of coffins driving through a town carrying war dead from a war many of us know see as fruitless and pointless are much more moving than 'SKY NEWS: 2 SOLDIERS DEAD NAMED AS...' which is something the government would very much like to see hushed up.

The main party leaders (who support these wars) have never, from my knowledge, stood in Wootton Bassett (correct me if i'm wrong) to see the results of their war firsthand and the U.S. government tried to ban pictures of coffins coming home not long ago when disembarking from the aircraft (http://pubrecord.org/commentary/4932/censorship-american-style-american/), images like that do not play well with the public as they very well know.


I have no idea why we're in Afghanistan anymore, I don't get why we were in there in the first place, it was not an absolute necessity.

Indeed, now involving ourselves in another war in Libya.

[Mathew]

We're in Libya because we're not going to sit back and watch whilst a dictator like Gaddafi kills his own people. We must consider ethics and values at times like this and at the end of the day... it's all about morals.

[Jordy]

Yes they are, the images of coffins driving through a town carrying war dead from a war many of us know see as fruitless and pointless are much more moving than 'SKY NEWS: 2 SOLDIERS DEAD NAMED AS...' which is something the government would very much like to see hushed up.

I don't believe the party leaders ever stood in Wooton Bassett (correct me if i'm wrong) and the U.S. government tried to ban pictures of coffins coming home not long ago when disembarking from the aircraft, images like that do not play well.How do you know it's something the government would very much like to see it hushed up? This all reeks of baseless and ridiculous conspiracies.

Yes they are moving images but that's hardly the point of the journeys, maybe they should release video footage of soldiers dying in Afghanistan as that would be moving :/ - We don't parade around dead people in this country like Iran calling them all "Heroes" and "Saviors". The deaths are announced, their bodies are respectfully moved from A to B (not paraded around infront of people taking unnecessary detours) and we quietly let the families get on with the funerals.

[-:Undertaker:-]

We're in Libya because we're not going to sit back and watch whilst a dictator like Gaddafi kills his own people. We must consider ethics and values at times like this and at the end of the day... it's all about morals.

But isn't that what we've done since Gaddafi came into power in the 1960s? isn't that what we're doing now in Saudi Arabia among others?


How do you know it's something the government would very much like to see it hushed up? This all reeks of baseless and ridiculous conspiracies.

Because of their actions, which i've just kindly listed for you with two examples from both sides of the Atlantic.


Yes they are moving but that's hardly the point of the journeys, maybe they should release video footage of soldiers dying in Afghanistan as that would be moving :/ - We don't parade around dead people in this country like Iran calling them all "Heroes" and "Saviors". The deaths are announced, their bodies are respectfully moved from A to B (not paraded around infront of people taking unnecessary detours) and we quietly let the families get on with the funerals.

I'm not asking for a parade, i'm just asking why the practice of the war dead being driven through the town nearby in a salute isn't being continued and is being dropped. Could it be possible that the government is ashamed and does not like the public seeing the results of these wars, hence why Mr Cameron, Mr Miliband and Mr Clegg are not ever seen at the side of the road with the coffins coming past?

Why this sudden change?

[Shar]

We're in Libya because we're not going to sit back and watch whilst a dictator like Gaddafi kills his own people. We must consider ethics and values at times like this and at the end of the day... it's all about morals.
Not trying to sound rude or anything but I really think you're being naive, since when did the government care abut morals? And they always watch dictators like Gaddafi kill their own people. Look at countries in the middle east such as Bahrain.

But isn't that what we've done since Gaddafi came into power in the 1960s? isn't that what we're doing now in Saudi Arabia among others?
Agreed.

There's a lot of dictators in the world doing what Gaddafi does but the only difference is that they do not get as much media coverage as this case is getting, there's always nit picking when it comes to this and thus we're ignorant of it.

[Mathew]

I don't know what's going on in Saudi Arabia so I won't comment, but I'm pretty happy that it's finally been picked up on... even if it did take a few years. It's all well and good complaining that it's been ignored "since the 1960s" but there are many dictatorships who simply aren't receiving support from the UK. Take Libya for example; some hate Gaddafi, and the other people like him out of fear. Just be happy that it's (hopefully) being stopped!

When did the Government care about morals? I wrote my English coursework on the how the UK is responding to the "human rights issues" in China and it's become pretty obvious that some thought is being given to it. Yes it will help trade and relationships with countries, but it would be ignorant to suggest nothing is being done in the name of morality.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't know what's going on in Saudi Arabia so I won't comment, but I'm pretty happy that it's finally been picked up on... even if it did take a few years. It's all well and good complaining that it's been ignored "since the 1960s" but there are many dictatorships who simply aren't receiving support from the UK. Take Libya for example; some hate Gaddafi, and the other people like him out of fear. Just be happy that it's (hopefully) being stopped!

When did the Government care about morals? I wrote my English coursework on the how the UK is responding to the "human rights issues" in China and it's become pretty obvious that some thought is being given to it. Yes it will help trade and relationships with countries, but it would be ignorant to suggest nothing is being done in the name of morality.

Oh come on, we've supported Gaddafi for years knowing exactly what he is like. The same goes for the Ba'ath Party and Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and Bin Laden himself... the list is endless. There's a very simple reason why we went into Libya and its this; until the march got near Tripoli, you'll remember a muted response from the west.. until the moment when it looked as though Gaddafi was finished and then the west changed sides. But as we all know, he staged a fightback that came from nowhere.. thus making us look the fools and creating the prospect that Libya would now been the type of anti-western state that Iran is now and that Iraq was a few years ago. If you would like me to list more current and past examples of this, i'll provide upon request.

Gaddafi himself said the west had 'betrayed him', its nothing to do with saving people.

[Mathew]

Interesting interpretation. Whilst I can see it being plausible, I just don't think that's a fair perspective to take. You're saying we're at war with Libya because we can't handle the fact that Gaddafi turned against the west? Honestly?.....

I'd say that our government would have to be stupid to do that, but I really wouldn't be surprised, sadly.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Interesting interpretation. Whilst I can see it being plausible, I just don't think that's a fair perspective to take. You're saying we're at war with Libya because we can't handle the fact that Gaddafi turned against the west? Honestly?.....

I'd say that our government would have to be stupid to do that, but I really wouldn't be surprised, sadly.

Look at how Iran and North Korea are treated because they are anti-western, compared to equally as nasty regimes pro-western such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. It has nothing to do with saving people, its to do with politics and corporate interests as was the case in Iraq.

Syria is a developing example of this, muted responses from the west over the crackdown just like with Libya when Gaddafi remained firmly in control as President Assad does at this moment. If his grip weakens anymore, you will find the west will turn against him just as they did with Gaddafi. If not, then there'll be some diplomatic theatre and within a short space of time relations will be normalised again with Syria.

[Mathew]

Look at how Iran and North Korea are treated because they are anti-western, compared to equally as nasty regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.
We hate North Korea because they're anti-western? It has nothing to do with their conflict with the South then? :P Yet again, it's down to morals.

[HotelUser]

Look at how Iran and North Korea are treated because they are anti-western, compared to equally as nasty regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

Please tell me you don't think this is the only reason we don't like North Korea. They're dictatorship which kills you if you try to leave the country, keeps their entire nation in the 1950s, can't spell healthcare and endorses slavery. The only bigger injustice about North Korea is that most people in the world don't know how terrible North Korea is.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Please tell me you don't think this is the only reason we don't like North Korea. They're dictatorship which kills you if you try to leave the country, keeps their entire nation in the 1950s, can't spell healthcare and endorses slavery. The only bigger injustice about North Korea is that most people in the world don't know how terrible North Korea is.

..then why doesn't the same mindset apply to pro-western regimes such Saudi Arabia, Libya (before the Arab Spring), Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt, Tunisia, Iraq (before the Gulf War)? all of these regimes have been and are just as brutal as the North Korean regime is, yet the west for *some reason* finds the anti-western regimes of Iran and North Korea appalling but the rest, who are pro-western aren't appalling.

We could go through various examples all night if we wished, you choose to believe we are there to do good because you want to believe it.

[Inseriousity.]

Yet again, it's down to morals.

No, it isn't really. Morals is just the rhetoric to convince the public that it's for a good cause. Of course, getting rid of a dictator is a good cause in itself but I highly doubt it'll be the reason that politicians would send us into a war so saying it's being done for moral purposes is misleading as we'd never not be at war. There's always some unethical injustice somewhere. Foreign policy must be a bugger to get right because on one hand, you've got to do things that are in the national interest (oil for example) and then you've got to sell it to the public as something else entirely. You've got to meet the most disgusting people in the world and then treat them with respect so that they don't try to mess up your country (through trade links etc). I thank my lucky stars I do not work in the Foreign Office! :P

Personally, the words 'national interest' are very dangerous. You can say anything is in the national interest really.

[Shar]

No, it isn't really. Morals is just the rhetoric to convince the public that it's for a good cause. Of course, getting rid of a dictator is a good cause in itself but I highly doubt it'll be the reason that politicians would send us into a war so saying it's being done for moral purposes is misleading as we'd never not be at war. There's always some unethical injustice somewhere. Foreign policy must be a bugger to get right because on one hand, you've got to do things that are in the national interest (oil for example) and then you've got to sell it to the public as something else entirely. You've got to meet the most disgusting people in the world and then treat them with respect so that they don't try to mess up your country (through trade links etc). I thank my lucky stars I do not work in the Foreign Office! :P

Personally, the words 'national interest' are very dangerous. You can say anything is in the national interest really.
Political leaders use "national interest" to get the support of the people, as much as I hate it it does work in several circumstances.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, it isn't really. Morals is just the rhetoric to convince the public that it's for a good cause. Of course, getting rid of a dictator is a good cause in itself but I highly doubt it'll be the reason that politicians would send us into a war so saying it's being done for moral purposes is misleading as we'd never not be at war. There's always some unethical injustice somewhere. Foreign policy must be a bugger to get right because on one hand, you've got to do things that are in the national interest (oil for example) and then you've got to sell it to the public as something else entirely. You've got to meet the most disgusting people in the world and then treat them with respect so that they don't try to mess up your country (through trade links etc). I thank my lucky stars I do not work in the Foreign Office! :P

Personally, the words 'national interest' are very dangerous. You can say anything is in the national interest really.

There's a simple solution; trade with all nations of the world (through trade comes benefits to both sides, often leading to democracy) and don't become involved in the internal affairs of other nation states or involved in wars which do not concern us. The policy of 'isolationism' after all is the policy we used to follow in the 1800s 'spendid isolation' and what the United States used to follow during the 1800s.

We could follow it again, to a degree China is presently following it.

[HotelUser]

Actually if I had to live in any of those countries I would genuinely cry and contemplate commuting suicide. We probably dislike North Korea in our society because they're arguably more extreme than all the regimes you've posted (not saying I wholeheartedly agree that they are but that many people would argue that):

- North Korea spent over 2% of their GDP on a hotel, and they only have 1 to 7 tourists in the country at once, who are escorted around the country the entire time they're here, and only one floor of the hotel at any given time.
- North Korea built really fancy houses right next to South Korea, spent millions on these houses just to make themselves look better than South, and nobody lives in these houses, they're only decorative outside and are bare inside.
- You need a picture of the "great leader" who's still considered North Korea's leader (although he's dead) in every room. You're not allowed to block these pictures and stand infront of them.
- You can buy radios but you cannot change the stations, only the volume, can't turn it off or mute it there's one station and the "dear leader" talks on it.
- If someone commits a crime everyone they know and their entire family gets sent to prison and labour camps. Crimes in North Korea aren't often what we would even consider crimes.
- There's a museum every North Korean is required to visit atleast one time in their life and it has gifts given to the dear and great leader from other countries thanking him, all these gifts are fake.
- Near the border between North and South Korea North Korea puts its most fit and biggest soldiers there to make them look stronger than South Koreans.
- Dear Leader kidnapped a South Korean film director to make a movie for North Korea.

And so it's immensely easy to see why we hate North Korean most, not necessarily because they're more harsh to their citizens than many countries, but because they're just the most stupid in terms of what they do, and their ideas as well as their beliefs retaining to the rest of the world. You should really watch The Vice Guide to North Korea (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6ixGYzbLz0) if you haven't because it's just shocking.


It's easy to accuse our governments of having second agendas and in the mindset of some politicians I think it's probably true. But given that it's the best we have right now I wont say much here. The bottom line is we need to minimize foreign deaths and suffering from lack of rights imposed by foreign governments unjustly. Even if we're just doing this and having impact on some peoples' lives in those places we're still making a contribution and we're still making a difference. If you're seriously going to sit here and tell me our soldiers, the people who actually chose to go into the profession and the people actually over there, are fighting with the sole purpose of bettering their home nation and not for humanitarian rights than I think you couldn't be more wrong.

If you're taking a stance that we're in there in self pursuit and pick and choose our battles I'd say that's a fair statement and I'd only disagree on pulling out because no matter how small we're still making a difference to some people by being involved for whatever reason.

If you're taking a stance that we should mind our own business in every matter then I think you're dead wrong. I think as modern and developed countries with legal systems which uphold the rights and freedoms of our people we have a responsibility to intervene in international scenarios where the rights and freedoms of others are infringed upon. If it was fiscally possible I'd say it's a shame if we didn't flatten Saudi Arabia, China and North Korea's political schemes in a single swipe.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Actually if I had to live in any of those countries I would genuinely cry and contemplate commuting suicide. We probably dislike North Korea in our society because they're arguably more extreme than all the regimes you've posted (not saying I wholeheartedly agree that they are but that many people would argue that):

-All bad aspects of North Korean regime listed here-

I'm not disputing at all how evil the North Korean regime is, i've read up on most of those things before and i'm well aware how the regime works and what dangers it poses. I would however, point out that North Korea is for on a par with Saudi Arabia which is on more or less the same level as North Korea in terms of how terrible its regime is.

So I would ask again, why is pro-western Saudi Arabia any different from anti-western North Korea?


And so it's immensely easy to see why we hate North Korean most, not necessarily because they're more harsh to their citizens than many countries, but because they're just the most stupid in terms of what they do, and their ideas as well as their beliefs retaining to the rest of the world. You should really watch The Vice Guide to North Korea (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6ixGYzbLz0) if you haven't because it's just shocking.

As I stated above, I am well aware of the socialist North Korean regime with its human experimentation, political prison camps and luxary golf courses coupled with trains for the Dear Leader and I do not need convincing as to how evil and demented the leaders of that nation are along with the suffering of the North Korean people. This however does not answer my question, which is why is it that the likes of the anti-western regimes which we consider brutal such as Iran and North Korea are treated in a totally different manner to the pro-western brutual regimes of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Libya (pre-Arab Spring), Iraq (pre-Gulf War) and many more.


It's easy to accuse our governments of having second agendas and in the mindset of some politicians I think it's probably true. But given that it's the best we have right now I wont say much here. The bottom line is we need to minimize foreign deaths and suffering from lack of rights imposed by foreign governments unjustly. Even if we're just doing this and having impact on some peoples' lives in those places we're still making a contribution and we're still making a difference. If you're seriously going to sit here and tell me our soldiers, the people who actually chose to go into the profession and the people actually over there, are fighting with the sole purpose of bettering their home nation and not for humanitarian rights than I think you couldn't be more wrong.

What propaganda the home nation dishes out upon the troops and the public is not the problem, the problem is that troops are being sent to their deaths on the pretence that they are there for the people and in the interests of the United States, the United Kingdom and NATO - this is a lie. If our politicians and yourself were honest with us, and explained that the reason why we are involved in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan were the issues of politics, corporate interests and oil then thats fine by me - it would be interesting to see how long our governments would last.

But the facts are that the truth isn't told, and instead when topics such as this are discussed the likes of yourself repeat well known facts telling us that we are there 'to help the people' - this is false. We are there based on corporate interests, not the interests of the country (see the debt of the United States for a glaring example) and politics, its as simple as that.

I wouldn't die for this nor do I think others should die for this, why do you think otherwise?


If you're taking a stance that we're in there in self pursuit and pick and choose our battles I'd say that's a fair statement and I'd only disagree on pulling out because no matter how small we're still making a difference to some people by being involved for whatever reason.

If we have a moral obligation to help others, why do you yourself not volunteer?

Its all very well saying this but is Iraq really better off post-Saddam? I think not as do many Iraqi people including the two million+ who have not returned to the country. It must also be noted, often this utopian idea of 'helping people by establishing a democracy' is rejected; in Palestine for example the people have opted for Hamas, a militant group with old style Islamic rules placed upon the people.

As Peter Hitchens comments, to sort out corruption in Afghanistan is like trying to drain the Pacific with a teaspoon.


If you're taking a stance that we should mind our own business in every matter then I think you're dead wrong. I think as modern and developed countries with legal systems which uphold the rights and freedoms of our people we have a responsibility to intervene in international scenarios where the rights and freedoms of others are infringed upon. If it was fiscally possible I'd say it's a shame if we didn't flatten Saudi Arabia, China and North Korea's political schemes in a single swipe.

Because like it or not, you cannot open a government in a box as the battles in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan show. If you look at history, you will actually find that the best way to achieve and spread values are by keeping our face out of it and simply trading along with setting a good example. Think its all hogwash? examples of this include South Korea which was under a military dictatorship which eventually opened up with free trade. Vietnam is another example, once relations were normalised with the regime it has opened up enormously. The Republic of China (Taiwan) is another example along with the Peoples Republic of China which is currently on its way to eventual democracy, both countries have opened up in line with the west opening up with them.

If we trade with nations, set a good example and don't support the then these regimes eventually crumble, and crumble they will without the blowback here on British or western soil which we keep seeing when we become embroiled in the affairs of foreign nations; the Taliban, Gaddafi with Lockerbie.

[DPS]

As a friend of many soldiers in the army, i cant honestly say, even they dont know where there in afghan anymore, it's like a game, go out on petrol, and maybe you wont come back, maybe you will.

[Shar]

As a friend of many soldiers in the army, i cant honestly say, even they dont know where there in afghan anymore, it's like a game, go out on petrol, and maybe you wont come back, maybe you will.
If you don't mind me asking, why do they do it then? :(

[DPS]

If you don't mind me asking, why do they do it then? :(

Because its a job, trust me if i could be doing it i would, but my left eye is to weak for service.

[Shar]

Because its a job, trust me if i could be doing it i would, but my left eye is to weak for service.
Even if you're risking your life and you haven't a clue what the war is for?

[dbgtz]

Even if you're risking your life and you haven't a clue what the war is for?

Some people do just do it as a job with extra risks I'm guessing, I doubt a lot of them see it as a patriotic/moral thing they're doing, just a service they're being paid for. And tbh they probably like the thrill the job brings, adrenaline and that.

[DPS]

Even if you're risking your life and you haven't a clue what the war is for?

Life doesnt matter, you can die at any time in your life, why not do it doing something you enjoy? that's how i see it, if they didnt fight for there country someone else would so might aswell do it. It's also the thrill they get.