This is not a debate, i just want to share something with you. I read this on a Facebook group called 'RED FRIDAY - please read.......' it makes me realize how lucky we (the British) are to have troops like this guy. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=76056524189&ref=search&sid=1119561613.2645457158..1
I like the idea that we are protected by good guys like that. Sadly, I know that this sort of person is not a rule, and not really in a majority either. Most people (not just in the army) would not have been so kind.
Heart-warming story. While I'm not Britain's biggest fan (I won't get into my plastic paddy tirades on why the North shouldn't be controlled by the UK. Consider yourselves spared ) I recognize how difficult it is for soldiers of any nation to fight and die for their country. It's good to see the people of Britain showing appreciation for their boys and girls in the service.
I teared up reading that. They really are so brave; I don't believe in war, but when we live in and amongst societies that do, and we have no choice, we need good honest men like that supporting us. I for one am extremely proud to know that we do. Bless their hearts. Matt and I were on the tube a few weeks ago and there were two soldiers, about 30-odd years old, and they were all uniformed up with their huge travelling bags on their way somewhere. They both had a puppy dog each, and they were so cute - they were stroking them and playing with them like they were their best friends. They were obviously training them for something (the dogs had special jackets on, hah) , but it was just such a lovely sight....to think brave men like that can still see happiness and love animals the way children do, despite everything they must've seen.
I am so proud of and so thankful for every individual who fights for our country. They're a lot braver than I could ever be, and we owe them so much yet give them so little. x
My father is a retired army officer (R.A) and I can assure you that the recruiting in the British Army is a very careful process. In fact, the army has more applicants than it needs (or perhaps I should say, the government has decided it needs) and so it can select recruits carefully. Of course, sadly some people (let's not forget there are now many women as well as men in the army) react badly under certain types of pressure especially when that pressure continues relentlessly, despite the careful training and selection. So I'm not saying every one of them is a shining hero, but they still do a pretty good, and professional, job. And I might add that, although this may seem bizarre to Americans, I never saw my father with a sidearm, and he never had one in our house except during the EOKA uprising in Cyprus (he carried one sometimes on training exercises). He and many of his fellow officers carried out their daily duties without carrying personal firearms--it saved his life on one occasion when he was recognised approaching a barricade at the Falls Road in N. Ireland (long story). The best soldiers were generally not the gung-ho types.
This story is not as unusual as some may think. I've seen soldiers run through enemy fire to grab a toddler exposed on the open road. I've been present in an orphanage where big, tough combat GI's volunteered to change diapers because the nuns running the place couldn't keep up with all the needs of the babies. It was amusing to see these "hardened" guys who had witnessed unspeakable injuries choke and gag over a smelly diaper. You don't go to war without great reverence for life...including the feelings of a child who misses her daddy. I appreciate and respect the actions of those Brits. They are good men and good soldiers. I wish them the best on their mission.
I'm nowhere near the biggest fan of either of our current military engagements, but I think it's sad to see so many people seeing the soldiers as the essential part of that. They're the ones who stand to lose the most, gain the least, and be given nothing whatsoever to help them in their task. The training (thirty-six weeks, for the Royal Marines; for the Americans it's eleven, or somewhere around there, for the standard infantry regiments, and that's one of the higher standards of training in the world) and selection to be in the British Army explains the small size, really. There are an endless list of physical, mental, and social problems that exclude people from being recruited, and quotas and beaurocracy that put another block on it. That's done for the grand total of no more than twenty-five thousand pounds, and there's not even a comment from the army about MoD administration being paid bonuses for their 'difficult and dangerous' desk jobs. We should always remember that the British Army has always retained one of the, if not the highest, standards in the world; many of those that join have to work for it, very few people are made for war. Their opponents are not cowards, they are not simply untrained militia, they are the most hardened guerrilla experts in the recent history of the world, and they are definitely far more organised and skilled than the media gives them credit for. The soldiers have to face them on their own, with almost nothing in their favour other than their teamwork, whilst the media, the public, and the NATO countries fight for scraps of the glory. It's nice to see that there are still people who support them, rather than see them as exporters of mass-consumerism and democracy to a country that doesn't need it or want it; that sort of attitude won't help, and neither will my friends giving the pilots of the planes that 'harass the native population' (the population of the Highlands here - it's not as if it's even a reference to Afghanistan) dirty looks in the pub.
Indeed. The individual soldiers have all the virtues and vices of regular men; they are not "brainwashed killing machines" as the media may portray them. Though, that particular idiotic view of military men and women may be a purely American phenomenon. It is my opinion that while nations may make bad choices (America has stuff like Bay of Pigs, Britain has Northern Ireland, etc.) the soldier out on the streets doing the politician's work is not to blame.
That warms my heart. I'm so glad to know that the US is lucky enough to have such a great ally in Britain, and that there are people who love their troops so much. This made my day.
Sorry to revive what is now an old thread, but I'm new, so forgive me. Without bringing the politics of the war in the Middle East into this forum (and I personally am opposed to the so called "war on terror", and believe that it has far more to do with a clandestine conspiracy between western governments and big business in order to make a select group of people very rich at the expense of the lives of our brave troops on the ground), I do have to say that this story reads very much like an urban myth, albeit a heart-warming one. It would be extremely unusual for British troops, in uniform and in such numbers, to use civilian airports and aircraft, because their very presence in these locations would make them a terrorist target and effectively endanger the lives of nearby innocent civilians. They've done all that has been asked of them over there, regardless of the motives of the faceless men who sent them there, but it's time to bring them home, IMO. "The speculators made their money, from the blood you shed..." Bruce Springsteen.
In reply to the 'urban myth' theory, well, my father was the army spokesman on two of his postings, and the stories that DIDN'T get into the papers were often more moving or unbelievable than the ones that did. For example, after a soldier was killed in N Ireland, if it became known that he had a family, bags of hand-knitted children's and baby clothes would be left at the camp gates 'for the boy's family' by Irish women from both sides of the divide. Usually, my father was told by the press censors to make no mention of this.
