[Closed] Would you go? Would you die for your country?

fingers crossed i'd be asked to provide my services in a mental health type way.... dont think i could kill another human, dont even like playing computer games if it involves shooting something :S

Would depend on the cause.

Yes without hesitation

Wouldn't volunteer but would accept conscription.

I quite fancy the bomb disposal team as there is less running around and being shot at, having said that, they probably wouldn't want me.

no.

If it was 1914, 1939...

In those two wars then Yes - no question. I'd be terrified though, I would never describe myself as brave.

I was a pretty good shot in my younger years, and always fancied myself as a sniper!

In some of todays wars - no.

1939 yes, 1914 no.

Luckily we are no longer in age of throwing millions of soldiers against millions of soldiers.

Wouldn't volunteer but would accept conscription.

Seconded

No, I'm not afraid of being a coward

I know someone who does high threat bomb disposal in Afganistan (previously Iraq, and NI). You do not want to do it.

It would depend on the cause. I would struggle to trust any current government that the cause was just unless there was some other more obvious evidence.

Unarmed medical corps yes. Hold a rifle no

Die for your country? I'm not so sure it just wasn't dying for one group of elite to rule over us as opposed to another group of elite to rule over us.

Not too fussed about shooting someone -it's the idea that they might shoot back that bothers me.

Way too old to be called up now but would go on the medic side if asked nicely.

Interesting question for a sunday morning, and hard to look objectively.

I come from a long line of conscientious objectors and reserved occupations.

But it's not a position I'm likely to be put in, for two reasons:

1. being a girl.

2. why would anybody invade New Zealand ? Or Scotland ?

But yes if that were to happen I would most definitely offer to help in whatever way I could.

I would, but the 'elite' would have to lead from the front and not be nice and safe miles behind the lines.

The overwhelming majority would - conscription dodging was not a serious problem in the two world wars.

I wouldn't have any problem volunteering to defend my country against a foreign aggressor. But if my country was the aggressor and/or was guilty of crimes to its own people, then I wouldn't hesitate to fight against it - as the German anti-Nazi resistance and Italian partisans did. My class consciousness comes before all else.

Yes.

1939 I would go, 1914 to just be cannon fodder no way, as for today's conflicts I don't see why were there as its a pointless war based on lie's and the reasons were there keep changing. We were meant to be there to combat terrorism, but only made it worse, now its for democracy??? Unless the UK was under immediate threat of attack then I would not answer the call.

Without hesitation during the two WW's i would.

With only the knowledge that our freedom was under threat and it was fight/defend or lose that freedom..

Now and in the future, they'd need a bloody good reason to 'need' me.

Unless it's for this.
[img] [/img]

thinking more and more...

i'd have to say that unless they could promise with 1 million percent certainty that i'd be saving lives and not taking lives... i'd do everything i could to avoid being called up.

In 1914, men signed up en masse due to extraordinary social dynamics causing overwhelming peer pressure, rather than the need to combat tyranny. In terms of right and wrong, there was very little difference between the protaganists with everyone fighting for the right to dominate imperial territories. I'd like to think that I'd have been able to avoid the hysteria and propaganda and not joined up but the social pressure to do so would have made it nigh on impossible and I think that the objectors were incredibly brave.

1939, I don't think that there would have been any alternative given what we were faced with.

1 million percent certainty

Calm down mate it's nothing as serious as the X factor!

ernie_lynch - i'm not really sure i buy your absolute conviction in the superior ideals of the allied forces in WWII - look to russia and their subsequent acts - isolationist and partitioning, they put a wall through berlin! it's nice to say that the best side won after the war, cos 'look at how great things are!' but in my opinion there is no way to know for sure before a war that your 'country' (read: ruling elite as mentioned before) are really doing this to make things 'better'. so for that, i'm out.

Se, it's easy to sit behind a keyboard and say 'yeah, I'd go', but if you stop for a moment to consider the full horror of war as it was in those two conflicts, then it becomes a bit more difficult. It's easy to sound brave and appear to be a righteous patriotic citizen, but if you were stuck in a freezing cold trench with your mates around you being blown to bits, and very little chance of survival, then I think you might have a different perspective.

On that basis, I can't say 'yeah, I'd go and fight for my country', because there's no way I'd want to be in such a situation, but I spose conscription makes things a lot more simple. You don't have a choice.

I'm glad I live in a country where I won't have to go to war. And I'm eternally grateful to, and have enormous respect for, those who had no choice, but fought so that I can sit here in the comfort of my home, typing out these thoughts. I don't know if I could ever be as brave as those poor souls, and I don't ever want to know.

Lest we forget.

[img] [/img]

I don't know if I could ever be as brave as those poor souls, and I don't ever want to know.

Lest we forget.

Amen to that.

It's a bit of a difficult comparison really, asking people alive today would they go to war in 1914 or 1941 or today. Totally different eras and way of life.

I was under the impression (could be wrong) that for at least some period of time, many WW1 conscripts believed they were heading over to France for a turkey shoot and had no idea of the horror they faced until they got there. Which of course couldn't happen today with the way the media is etc.

And of course being called up to fight Nazi's and fascism is an awful lot different to being asked to fight morally ambiguous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I read Genertaion Kill recently (really good) and one of the themes it explores is whether Marines today in the US, as part of the MTV Generation could possibly be as ruthless and deadly as the US marines in WW2 in the Pacific. The author quoted a statistic whereby a surprising percentage of WW2 Marines deliberately shot to miss (I can't remember the figure) whereas that was the very least of the problems with today's generation of Marines, made for interesting reading.

+1 for Elf. Times are different now, we have more choice, and thanks to those that gave the ultimate sacrifice, more freedom. I'd like to think I'd be brave enough, but who knows, until they're put into that situation?

Elfinsafety - Member
Se, it's easy to sit behind a keyboard and say 'yeah, I'd go', but if you stop for a moment to consider the full horror of war as it was in those two conflicts, then it becomes a bit more difficult. It's easy to sound brave and appear to be a righteous patriotic citizen, but if you were stuck in a freezing cold trench with your mates around you being blown to bits, and very little chance of survival, then I think you might have a different perspective.

When did you go?

Yeah, I'd go.

In many ways those who did conscientiously object were actually braver. Especially in the First World War, with all the patriotic fervour that was flying around to stand and and say No must have been tremendously difficult.

Like Elf I dunno what I would have done. Wouldn't have been keen on fighting for one cousin against another to see whose Empire was stronger. Mindless, needless carnage for nothing. Huzzah!

I'd like to think I'd have signed up for the International Brigade and gone to Spain in 1936 but no way of knowing...thankfully.

i agree with elfinsafety

I would do so if I had to. Wars are a terrible terrible thing and the death of ANY human being isn't good. With any conflict those in charge will give reasons why they had to do it with endless counter arguements as to why it shouldn't happen in the first place. Then there are reasons we will never understand why, never ever know the truth about and never ever put right if it was for the wrong reasons. When you watch the drama's like "The Pacific" and see how brutal war can be, even if it's "done for tv" they now put those involved, those who's story it was written about and then you see just how it's affected them, how they cry, how you see tears well up in their eyes at them thinking about fallen commrades and even about the enemy too - it's deeply depply upsetting and not good. No war is good. End of.

Me too (agree with elfinsafety).

When did you go?

Yeah, I'd go.

I din't say I did. I just made the point that being aware of the full horror of the reality of War in those two conflicts would almost definitely influence any hypothetical decision one might make.

I doubt the conscripts in WW1 had much idea about the reality that awaited them. I dare say there were strenuous efforts made to keep such information from them, as it would have been counter-productive to allow conscripts any inkling of the truth of what they were being sent into. As Duggan points out; today's media constantly feeds us with all sorts of imagery and information that WW1 soldiers would have been oblivious to.

Had I been 18 or so in 1914-1918, I dare say that I may well have seen going off to fight for my country as a rite of passage; something to go off and enjoy with my mates. Many accounts from that time show that many young men felt this way, such was their naivety and ignorance of the reality of War. Back then, War was something that made you a man; there was no greater honour than to have risked everything in battle, in the name of your King and Country. This was of course a myth; the reality was that two opposing ideologies/powers needed men to fight for their respective causes. Regardless of the moral ins and outs, both sides needed to be able to stir up emotions and give people a sense of moral courage; you will fight to the death for what you believe is right. I'm sure the young German lads probbly felt the same.

I am glad that the World has changed, and that governments largely can't send men to their deaths simply for economic or politically ideological reasons. I'm glad that we can sit back and disagree with the reasons for conflict, and choose not to fight.

And once again, I'm grateful to those that did, so that I don't have to.

As I said, it's easy to be brave from behind a keyboard.

Not a chance, I have two young daughters, my responsibility is to them.

+1 ernie.

I was sponsored by the MOD all the way through Uni.

I spent my summers working with various different groups of people all signed up. When it came to it I just couldn't fight for what we live for now.

I couldn't have led men who felt un-appreciated by society, I just couldn't be involved in a system which expected these guys to give their lives for this country but took away everything that used to be considered a perk, I couldn't lead them knowing that at the end of the day if the chips were down they would be left out in the cold by the politicians.

I have a huge amount of respect for those who signed up, I have friends serving in all 3 forces, but I am not a guy who will tow the line. The system is rotten from within (IMO) I have no time for policy makers, I have no time for the guys who are forcing efficiency savings onto our front line troops, or any of our front line services.

I think I did the right thing, but will always support those on the front line without question.

Yes. But I joined up at 16 so I would say that wouldn't I .

I'm sorry but to say you live in a country that doesn't have to go to war misses the point. What an ideal world if every singel human being thought so and we could all live in peace but sadly that isn't possible. Human nature as it is will always have someone who thinks they are right and thier way should be the way of everyone else - it's been like this I guess from the very first cavemen! Animals will fight over territory or a mate so it's something we humans do over other things too - oppression, religion etc etc. Don't even start to tell me we are of an higher intelligence than animals because I know that but has that ever stopped a Hitler, or god knows who from stopping and thinking "hey up, this isn't right" - er no!! Elfin this world is far far far from perfect and it's a shame anyone has to put their life on the line to defend their rights, their beliefs, their homes and families - BUT IT HAPPENS!

Elfin this world is far far far from perfect and it's a shame anyone has to put their life on the line to defend their rights, their beliefs, their homes and families - BUT IT HAPPENS!

Of course it does. To Humanity's shame. But I hope I'm never, ever in a position where I have to be 'brave'. Because to be perfectly honest, I really don't know if I could be.

Elfin you seem like a person of principles I don't believe that in the situation depicted you would want to let others carry your burden...

No bloody way I'd do it. Get paid a pittance to risk your life occupying a country where we shouldn't be, not for me thanks. Full admiration to the brave souls who do. Maybe the lazy workshy class the uk seems to breed could be signed up for compulsory service, learn some discipline and values

oh teh ironing!

I don't know if I could ever be as brave as those poor souls, and I don't ever want to know.

Lest we forget.

+1

It is something I think about often, not 'would I' but 'could I'?

Never again. Lest we forget

Yes. And I would hope without hesitation.

I would not go to war for my country whatever the scenario it is just a lump of rock that may be right or wrong but it does not deserve my unswaying loyality and blood to protect it - notleast as those who want the power/resources and give the orders are very unlikely to be leading the line or risking their own lives for their cause. pressganging conscription etc
No way WW1 at all yes for WW2 - what was the alternative?
I would fight for what I believed in if their was no alternative for queen and country frankly f@ck em they can fight for that jingoistic nonesense

I would fight for my family and friends.. and my neighbours..and I guess even my countrymen... IF and only if they were faced with imminent mortal danger from an invading horde..

"it is just a lump of rock"

I'm not at all patriotic but that is just incorrect.

Elfinsafety -Member

I'm eternally grateful to, and have enormous respect for, those who had no choice

I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense. I tend to have more respect for those who had a choice eg, the German anti-Nazi resistance and Italian partisans.

[b][i]"it's easy to sit behind a keyboard and say 'yeah, I'd go'"[/i][/b]

No, it's easy to figure out that most people are prepared to fight when their country is threaten by a foreign aggressor - history shows this to be true.

.

MussEd - Member

I'd like to think I'd have signed up for the International Brigade and gone to Spain in 1936 but no way of knowing...thankfully.

Yeah I've also often thought about that.......it takes a serious amount of guts to volunteer to fight in a war which doesn't directly affect you.

My father did exactly that. As a 19 year old kid/man he left Argentina to volunteer to fight against fascism in the Spanish Civil War. He got there before the International Brigades were even formed ffs. He initially joined the Spanish republican air force (was shot down) and later was transferred to the Garibaldi Brigade after the International Brigades were formed. He saw very heavy fighting (part of the reason South Americans were placed with the Garibaldi Brigade was because the brigade sustained such heavy casualties and they needed the numbers) Towards the very end of the war he received serious shrapnel injuries and was removed from front-line duties. When the General Franco eventually triumphed he escaped over the Pyrenees into France where he was promptly interned in a concentration camp with other former republican soldiers. Luckily he managed to escape with a friend (many former republican soldiers were later handed over to the Nazis who used them as slave labour until they died)

After going through all that shit you might have forgiven him if he had decided to go home and have a quiet life. But he decided that the war in Spain was just a prelude in the [i]big[/i] war against fascism. In 1940 he arrived in Britain to volunteer to fight in the Free French air force. He did so by lying that his parents were French - his grandmother was French and he had been fluent in French since a child. Although he trained as a Lancaster navigator recurring ear problems (altitude related) forced him to take him a desk job. Funnily enough although he was happy to talk freely about his time on the Free French air force he rarely talked about Spain. Spain was a truly nasty war and he only occasionally gave snippets of information about it, such as how it had once taken him all the willpower he could muster not to defecate in his trousers when he was was ordered to advance under very heavy shelling across a river, or the time he refused to go on firing squad detail, "I came to Spain to kill the enemy, not my own side" he apparently told them.

He did eventually return to Argentina, but only for post traumatic stress to eventually catch up with him (not something which he would ever admit to though) he drank far more than was healthy. I can't imagine that I would have had the guts to go through all that myself, but there was nothing particularly special about my father - just a man who had ideals based on the fact that all people are equal. So who knows ?

Quite a difficult question to answer but I would go and fight if the country was faced with an foreign aggressor, as in WW2.
I would not go and fight in WW1, the way the soldiers were treated was absolutely shocking (I would like to see the then establishment investigated for the way they treated our troops in WW1) but as others have said did the average man know what he was heading into?
With the way information is available today I believe it would be much easier for average man to make an assessment of the foreign threat the country faced and base their decision on that information and not what the government was telling them. Hopefully future governments will find it impossible to carry out wars like Iraq and Afghanistan due to the availability of information.

IMO

+1 Piha

al the critical point in the sentence was that the country, however you wish to define it, may be right or wrong. Yes people, traditions etc make it different from other lumps of rock. We have lived here a while we like it it and it has good things here but so does every other lump of rock just different things and different people
Should I die for the BBC, NHS, liberal western rights, capitalism, a rubbish football team, loads of people I dont know who also live here ? constitutional monarchy? A coalition govt I did not vote for? to liberate the Iraqi [s]oil[/s] people?what exactly?
I would fight, if forced , for what I beleive in not what the country stands for these may match or they may not.

Not for my country, but I joined up at 16 into the British Army... Saw a few sights, got a few t-shirts, and went to too many bun fights for friends who where beaten by the clock..

So, yeah, I was willing, but thankfully I didn't have to.

I left after 12 years due to a broken back, otherwise I dare say I'd have a cracking tan about now.

I was in the army between the ages of 16-22, so I'm pretty sure yes.

Elfinsafety
I'm glad I live in a country where I won't have to go to war. And I'm eternally grateful to, and have enormous respect for, [b]those who had no choice[/b], but fought so that I can sit here in the comfort of my home, typing out these thoughts.

What about those who had and have a choice? Those who volunteer so there is no need for conscription. Those who do it so you can maintain that comfort. Do they not deserve respect?

Yes, I would for both but might shoot some commanding officers on the way too for their incompetence.

Junkyard - Member

Should I die for the BBC, NHS, liberal western rights, capitalism, a rubbish football team, loads of people I dont know who also live here ? constitutional monarchy? A coalition govt I did not vote for? to liberate the Iraqi oil people?what exactly?

Junkyard - you appear to be talking about the Leninist principle of [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeatism ]"revolutionary defeatism"[/url] !

Yeah, sure, there's a lot of sense in that. But the defeat of an imperialist power is often a prerequisite for the defeat of your own ruling class. For example, do you think the Bolivan people could even begin to liberate themselves from an oppressive ruling class if troops from the US were landing on their soil ?

I have absolutely no idea. Certainly can't put myself in the shoes of my grandads or great grandad, just no idea of the world they were in. I know they didn't think they had much choice, so probably I'd feel the same.

That said, there's not much call for gimp-legged shortsighted osteoperotic coeliac diabetics on the front line so I think I'd be quite low down the list to be asked.

Well, it's hardly likely to happen now, unless I get asked to join the "Home Guard", but if we were in danger of invasion from some of the dreck of humanity of which we have examples past and present - ie: communists, fascists, nazis, religious maniacs and the like, then I hope I'd be brave enough to kill more than one, to help put us on the winning side.

The desire to live in a meritocratic secular republic, notwithstanding...

[i]I would not go and fight in WW1, the way the soldiers were treated was absolutely shocking[/i]

It's difficult, if not impossible to apply todays concept of personal individuality to the mindset of the early Edwardian people of Britain in the first part of the twentieth century. They were quite simply different people to us, they had a different world view, and a different appreciation of their part in that world, and that applies to all strata of that society.

I would happily defend my country against foreign/political aggression directed against us (be that here or abroad).

i have no idea, and i'm very grateful for my ignorance.

i'm enjoying a very comfortable, uneventful life, i'm very lucky.

i am truly humbled by the actions and sacrifice of others, who ask nothing of me in return.

i'm also a little bit cross with our ruling/political class but then i'm an ignorant idiot, i've never done anything useful or selfless in my life, i've never made a difficult decision. it's easy for me to criticise, maybe i shouldn't.

Yes I would.

Maybe the lazy workshy class the uk seems to breed could be signed up for compulsory service, learn some discipline and values

The principle of conscription might be sound but we don't always want the b*ggers; got enough to deal with at the best of times!

To defend our Great Britain from oppression (foreign or domestic), yes.

you appear to be talking about the Leninist principle of "revolutionary defeatism" !

I'd kill for the right cause, but I don't think I would give my life. Its easier to live with the shame then to live with a fatal wound.

Well, if Junkyard isn't sure about 'revolutionary defeatism', I'd like to think I am.................No, I would not fight for the 'country' because that kind of patriotism means in effect fighting for those in charge to continue crapping on us, and to turn our guns on people like us in other countries. My allies are ordinary folk in other countries, not the bosses in my own. My enemies are those who try to wrap us up in national flags and bullshit ideologies to make us cannon fodder for wars where the bottom line is about which major capitalist power controls the world economy (yes, even in WW2 - British, French and US governments loved fascism in the 30s when they hoped it would wipe out communist and anarchist workers organisations).

So no for both WW1, WW2 and all the Western-sponsored wars and skirmishes that have followed - but yes to internationalism and events like the Spanish Civil War, and yes to liberation struggles across the globe (if they need help from supporters abroad).Am I a pacifist? No, but if I have to take up arms I want to be sure it's for the right reasons. Am I prepared to die? If I have to, but again supporting something I believe in rather than the right for those with money and power to carry on screwing the rest of us. Am I scared of death and a lilly-livered coward? You betcha (I'm even scared of the consequences of writing this and getting hatemail)...........but if you don't stand up for what you believe, then where are you? Now I guess I'll need that bike helmet!

So, you'd be happy to fight fascists who threatened subjugation elsewhere, but not if they threatened to invade and subjugate your own country?

How peculiar.

As Chris Hitchens has said of modern Left politics - "See just how deeply the termites have dug", indeed...

The concept of a Garibaldi brigade intrigued me, (the hobnob brigade rule at work) luckily wikipedia came to the rescue with this faultlessly accurate account -

The Garibaldi biscuit was named after Giuseppe Garibaldi, an Italian general and leader of the fight to unify Italy. During the war they had to use limited rations to prepare food, the result was a simple biscuit. In faraway Tuscany, Giuseppe Garibaldi sat down for afternoon tea only to realise he had sat on an Eccles cake which had been delivered from his good English friend Gordon Bennett, to which he exclaimed the very name: "Gordon Bennett!", coining the phrase 'Gordon Bennett'. As Giuseppe jumped up in shock he looked down to see the part of the Eccles cake which wasn't plastered to his arsecrack, and decided from this moment onwards the squashed Eccles cake would be eaten by millions and would be named... THE GARIBALDI.

I am unsure as to why you think the view above reflects modern left politics what with it being leninist in orgin and being about 100 years old. Ah well served to make your political point I suppose
which hitchens are you quoting btw.
I dont disagree with most of thepost above but nazis clearly needed to be defeated most wars are the struggle for power and wealth fought by the powerless and the poor. They sell them much better these days where they do it for your liberites or to enshrine other people's liberties but only where it suits them and certainly not universally - see our mates in Saudi or the military rulers in ****stan for examples

I notice someone has posted the tag 'White Feathers', no doubt as a sly dig at those who've said that they wouldn't fight.

It's a strange irony, that the accusation of cowardice comes from someone using the anonymity of the tags, rather than presenting their thoughts in the open, in a post....

Unless you have been involved in close combat, you can't know how you will react. I suppose the 'fight or flight' instinct would kick in, and perhaps lead you to actions which otherwise you would be incapable of performing.

I remember playing Call of Duty 2, a few years ago. A game set in WW2, with scenes from the Normandy Landings and other 'theatres' of War. It struck me, as I became absorbed in the game, that the reality of such a situation would surely be unimaginably horrific. To have to take the life of some poor bugger, probably not much unlike yourself, to serve the ends of people far removed from the situation you yourself were in. Real War is never as simple as 'shoot the bad guys'.

Perhaps even more than those who serve, I have immense respect and admiration for people like journalists, who risk their lives and may come under fire from both sides, to bring us images and accounts of the reality of the situation, Medics, aid workers and all other unarmed neutral Humanitarians.

I know I'm not brave enough to do what they do. And they do it completely of their own volition. Now that, in my book, is true bravery, yet it is often the Generals and Admirals who will head the Victory Parades...

I'd prefer not to kill some bloke just like me, who has kids and family, no matter what country he's from or what his leaders are proposing. I'd die for the direct saving of my kids in a hostile situation, but not for anyone else - certainly not for the political concept of 'freedom'. I don't go along with the idea that a life is only valuable based on someone else's perception of the 'values' of the nation state it exists in.

this is such a difficult question, yes, and no, the world has shrunk immensly since the great wars, back then i suppose without hesitation as it was clear as black and white is
Today however with all modern marvels media and such like im not so sure i,d like to know whom is pulling the strngs
Ive never encountered war but have encountered a few people in my life who have, even come accross someone as a youngster who returned from combat and found him on a bed with both wrists slit and me standing in a pool of his blood, he survived, i never knew then what happened (was just to juvenile) but know it must be a terrible thing, i recall that image crystal clear
so the answer to the OP is i dont know and hope to never find out

Not a cat in hell's chance. a) I'm colourblind so useless in a combat situation (yes, I know that's balls but it's the stance of the armed forces so who am I to argue) and b) thankfully I do a job that is vital to the war effort back in Blighty.
I wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone in a homeland invasion situation though.

Yes; But I'd be in intelligence or designing new weapons of mass d...

dekadanse

I think it is fairly clear that WW2 was a war of defence for the UK - even if you don't think defending our parters was the right thing to do I am fairly sure without Britons fighting Germany would have overrun the UK, the usa probably would not have entered the European war and many more would have died.

Lessor of two evils.

I'd say yes, but be in the 98% that would shoot, but not to kill or hit..

iDave - very well put, that sums up how I feel too.

Far too many internet warriors on here.

Isn't it extraordinary that it's almost a hundred years ago that WW1 started, and also that the ordinary man in the street/trench did not have the right to vote back then. In many ways that conflict had more in common with the Napoleonic era than today: It was normal for one of the big European superpowers (France, Prussia or Austria) just to march in to someone elses country, just for the hell of it and the ordinary soldier was just expected to stand still on the battlefield and be shot to pieces. The cowards of that conflict were the respective governments who failed to get together in 1915 to call a halt to the carnage.
Attitudes to war had definately changed by 1939; except for a wee Austian gent with a daft moustache.
I would have fought for my country against Hitler, back then (except I,m half German!).
Can't envisage a modern conflict where I would do simerlarly.

Ive never encountered war but have encountered a few people in my life who have, even come across someone as a youngster who returned from combat and found him on a bed with both wrists slit and me standing in a pool of his blood

If you just look at the Falklands War which, with no disrespect to those who fought and died in it, was far from being the most dirty and horrific war ever fought, the long term consequences are truly staggering.

A "mere" 255 British personnel died in that conflict, but by 2002 an estimated 264 Falklands veterans had committed suicide.

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1758301.stm ]Falkland veterans claim suicide toll[/url]

And Argentina is catching up. 649 Argentines died in that conflict, and to date, approximately 500 Argentine veterans have committed suicide - the number continues to increase unabated.

I believe jahwomble on here might have been an eventual victim of a past conflict.

Wars are nasty businesses which don't fit in very comfortably with what is natural human behaviour. Despite what some, including Hollywood, have in the past, been so keen to convince us.

It's just a shame that we still have world leaders such as Bush and Blair who still get euphoric at the thought of going to war. It is no coincident that the most outspoken world leader against rushing to war in Iraq was Jacques Chirac. Because despite being a dodgy crook, Jacques Chirac had experienced the full horrors of war when he served in the Algerian war.

I shall always remember when Jacques Chirac responded to Bush's comment just before the the Iraq war that "the game's over", with "it's not a game and it isn't over". Chirac also asked Blair at a EU summit in Brussels how he could look at his son Leo in the eye if he was the leader responsible for starting a war with Iraq. Chirac failed to understand that callous low-lifes like Bush and Blair don't care about other people's children.

I don't know - I cannot possibly put myself in that situation. When I was young enough to be conscripted, I was totally opposed to war and had the mind of a conscientious objector. Now, I'm older, well, I'm too old.
Wars should be fought like this - and the people should force it!
[img] [/img]