Let us respect the Dead

[dcfcdavecov]

Perhaps people want to hi-light exactly why these soldiers have died - they are the ones protecting us all and defending the freedoms we have.

I think the repatriation ceremony is hugely important for the bereaved families and all those who attend to pay their respects. I watched a documentary about Royal Wootten Bassett and it's residents and I found it very moving - it was painfully obvious how important this procession is to everyone involved.

Those soldiers deserve every bit of recognition they get and those who think differently should hang their heads in shame. I suggest they try living in a soldiers shoes for a week, I'm sure they'd think differently then.

Ushering them in through a side door on the quiet is not good enough, in fact I think it's an insult to them.

BAHAHAHAHAHA Daily Mail reader, right?

It's their job. You know there's a possibility of dieing. If you think signing a bit of paper at the age of 18 makes you a hero, think again. These are lads picked on purpose from poorer areas of the United Kingom...Wales being a good example. That doesn't make them heroes.

I could do their job, i like it, i very nearly did it. My mate - Kenji Ara must be the only Japanese officer in the army. Based at Sandhurst now. he's no hero. Nor is my mate James Thwaite in the Paratroopers...or Shaun Templeton in the Queens Guards.

The innocent Afghans that die get ushered somewhere. Who knows where. Not on the news that's for sure.

We're in a war with no cause, that's the disgrace....

I can see how the whole repatriation process can look to others. I personally don't think we should parade the dead.....not for dieing in this war.

[Leeds Ram]

we are in a war with a cause, it depends on whether people look at that cause, 2/3rds of the civilians killed in this war have been killed by either the taliban, Al Qaeda, or other associate forces. I agree with you that there is the possibility of dying and just because someone signs a piece of paper going into a job acknowledging that they can die to me doesn't make them a hero, if they do something heroic in the line of duty, that is a hero.

[Leeds Ram]

There's a sentiment amongst many high level politicians in the United States (including the Secretary of Defence (Panetta), the Secretary of State (Clinton), as well as all of the fancied Republican nominees for 2012 - Bachmann, Gingrich, Romney, Palin), that the greatest threat to global security today is Iran, and their pursuit of nuclear weapons. The Americans priorities would read as such;

1) Iran ceases development of nuclear weapons technology

2) Sanctions brought against Iran which ultimately force them to cease development of nuclear weapons technology

3) Non-invasive surgical airstrikes to take out R&D and enrichment facilities that ultimately forces them to cease

4) Invasive conventional warfare directly forces them to cease

5) Nuclear strikes directly force them to cease

1 isn't going to happen. 2 - we've tried, and it gets us nowhere. 3 - won't get the job done as you can't be sure that you've got everything. This leaves 4 and 5, of which 4 is obviously preferable.

Obama, is on record as saying that Iran, along with North Korea are the only nations that he can envisage the United States using a nuclear strike against. Further to that, you have Clinton, Panetta, Bachmann, Gingrich, Romney, Palin, and no doubt countless others, supporting a stance that refuses to rule out the use of nuclear strikes if they're the only way of preventing Iran from getting the bomb.

America are itching to get into Iran, because eventually if they don't, then we're left with option 5 above. At the end of the day it all comes down to a few simple truths;

1) Iran will NOT cease their pursuit of nuclear weapons technology

2) The United States will NOT allow them to get it

A nuclear Islamic state is a direct threat to the security of Israel, and if you think our relationship with the US is 'special' then you should really have a look at the one between Israel and the US.

Saudi Arabia is irrelevant - any scenario that leaves Iran with a nuclear weapon is unacceptable to the United States.

Barring a complete overthrow of the current regime and Iran becoming a lot more open, war with Iran is inevitable.

I never said anything about our relationship with the united states, Isreal do have a very special relationship as they can break international law and not be prosecuted for their taking of Palestinian land. Anyway everything in Iran is up in the air at the moment, with the president and the grand ayatollah having arguments there is a real chance there will be a change in power, either of the president or the grand ayatollah more likely the president. The republican nominees are irrelevant as none of them are going to be elected in the 2012 election, they are too right wing for most Americans to vote for them. If obama gets another term he won't go into Iran, so that leaves it until 2016 in which time things might have changed big time, I think the most likely scenario is that even if Iran get the weapon it will be no good, the saudi's will probably have one and hold it to their heads, Isreal will either try to destroy it or invade with the help of newly reformed countries, and possibly with financing and equipment from the americans and maybe drone strikes and bombs ona bit more advanced scale to libya.

Option 3 is the most realistic to start with, surgical airs strikes, we won't invade iran because i don't think we would win and the financial situation of America would actually probably halt such an action before it started, they can't afford another war. The people of America don't want another war either, Afghanistan needs to be over for a few years before the public will have the appetite to go in. Option 4 will be the most likely solution if 3 ultimately fails, 5 is simply not an option, if that happens then the whole of the middle east will erupt, that part of the world is like a tinderbox, and you can bet that a lot of the other arab nations and maybe even russia would stand behind Iran, they would destroy israel if that happened quite frankly, the arab nations would launch a ground attack in my opinion on Israel, the only reason why israel gets away with so many things is that it is our only real foothold in that part of the world.

[davenportram]

The innocent Afghans that die get ushered somewhere. Who knows where. Not on the news that's for sure.

We're in a war with no cause, that's the disgrace....

I can see how the whole repatriation process can look to others. I personally don't think we should parade the dead.....not for dieing in this war.

The innocent Afghans get treated with respect by their families.

We ate in a war with no cause you say, but why treat the dead as if we are ashamed of them? The Families should have the choice.

And as for not parading the dead from this war, you seem ashamed of them. It is not their fault that they have gone to fight a war you don't agree with. They put their life on the line for each and every on of us. Their families should have the right to choose how there repatriation is handled. If it was such a distasteful thing to do then why did so many attend Wooten Bassett. It us because people may not agree with the war, but that is no reason to bf ashamed of those fighting it.

This, IMO, is a decision made made politicians who are ashamed of sending our troops to fight in this war.

[ladyram]

BAHAHAHAHAHA Daily Mail reader, right?

It's their job. You know there's a possibility of dieing. If you think signing a bit of paper at the age of 18 makes you a hero, think again. These are lads picked on purpose from poorer areas of the United Kingom...Wales being a good example. That doesn't make them heroes.

I could do their job, i like it, i very nearly did it. My mate - Kenji Ara must be the only Japanese officer in the army. Based at Sandhurst now. he's no hero. Nor is my mate James Thwaite in the Paratroopers...or Shaun Templeton in the Queens Guards.

The innocent Afghans that die get ushered somewhere. Who knows where. Not on the news that's for sure.

We're in a war with no cause, that's the disgrace....

I can see how the whole repatriation process can look to others. I personally don't think we should parade the dead.....not for dieing in this war.

No, I don't read the Daily Mail - or any other in fact. It's just my personal view on how to receive our war dead back, using dignity and respect, the way it should be.

To me, it's not a parade either, it's a repatriation ceremony. There's a difference in there somewhere...

[Duracell]

Perhaps people want to hi-light exactly why these soldiers have died - they are the ones protecting us all and defending the freedoms we have.

The sad thing about this war, ladyram, is that they're not really fighting for our freedom. I'm not sure what it is exaclty that we're preventing by being there.

[Leeds Ram]

duracell they are really, that is why they are out there, to protect us and the afghani people.

[dcfcdavecov]

The innocent Afghans get treated with respect by their families.

We ate in a war with no cause you say, but why treat the dead as if we are ashamed of them? The Families should have the choice.

And as for not parading the dead from this war, you seem ashamed of them. It is not their fault that they have gone to fight a war you don't agree with. They put their life on the line for each and every on of us. Their families should have the right to choose how there repatriation is handled. If it was such a distasteful thing to do then why did so many attend Wooten Bassett. It us because people may not agree with the war, but that is no reason to bf ashamed of those fighting it.

This, IMO, is a decision made made politicians who are ashamed of sending our troops to fight in this war.

I'm not ashamed of them...not my words. Nor is distasteful.

I can see why the current process would bring comfort to their families, it probably makes them fell like their son was someone....not a waste of life. And that is an emotional tangle between them and the town. Bringing comfort to someone is a great feeling.

I just see the other side.

Obviously you and the wife read the same Saturday paper.

[dcfcdavecov]

No, I don't read the Daily Mail - or any other in fact. It's just my personal view on how to receive our war dead back, using dignity and respect, the way it should be.

To me, it's not a parade either, it's a repatriation ceremony. There's a difference in there somewhere...

Ceremonial parade then.

[davenportram]

I'm not ashamed of them...not my words. Nor is distasteful.

I can see why the current process would bring comfort to their families, it probably makes them fell like their son was someone....not a waste of life. And that is an emotional tangle between them and the town. Bringing comfort to someone is a great feeling.

I just see the other side.

Obviously you and the wife read the same Saturday paper.

Fair enough, No Saturday papers in this house - can never be bothered going to the paper shop. My views could be blinkered by my dad being a serviceman, and almost joining up myself. But I think this is more about politics of the war than anything else. Oh and the cut backs to the Police too.

[dcfcdavecov]

The title of the thread gave your views away.

[StaffsRam]

I never said anything about our relationship with the united states, Isreal do have a very special relationship as they can break international law and not be prosecuted for their taking of Palestinian land.

Our relationship with America was used as context for Israel's relationship with America, which if anything, is even stronger than the one we share with them. It's the nature of this relationship, and the strength of it that will determine what eventually happens with Iran. You underestimate just how far America are willing to go on behalf of Israel.

The republican nominees are irrelevant as none of them are going to be elected in the 2012 election, they are too right wing for most Americans to vote for them.

The list of Republican nominees are leading figures within the party - along with the majority leader, John Boehner, another staunch supporter of Israel. You're underestimating just how difficult the Republicans can make it for Obama, whether they're in office or not. They now control the House and are within a hair's breadth of taking the Senate, and with it Congress. At that point Obama can forget about achieving anything as they can nix everything he puts before them.

It won't come to that though, as the vast majority of the Democratic party share the same view on Israel - it has the right to protect itself. Obama's tried to soften US foreign policy relating to Iran, but whenever he does, someone from the party speaks out. If push ever came to shove, it doesn't really matter what Obama wants personally as there's enough pressure that can be brought to bear from within his own party, not to mention the Republican party, to force his hand.

However, again, it wouldn't come to that - Obama's already on record for the potential use of nuclear strikes against Iran if necessary. No one of significance, on either side of the political spectrum in America rules out the use of nuclear strikes against Iran if it were the only way of stopping them getting a nuclear weapon, including Obama.

Do you think it's more tolerable for Obama to put troops into Iran via conventional warfare, or to nuke them? America don't want to use nukes - that's why they've recently ruled out nuclear strikes against everyone bar Iran and North Korea - the caveat to that was that any attacks against the United States would be met with a massive conventional response. This stance alone proves that the Americans find it more morally conscionable to use conventional means over nuclear strikes.

Option 3 is the most realistic to start with, surgical airs strikes, we won't invade iran because i don't think we would win and the financial situation of America would actually probably halt such an action before it started, they can't afford another war. The people of America don't want another war either, Afghanistan needs to be over for a few years before the public will have the appetite to go in. Option 4 will be the most likely solution if 3 ultimately fails, 5 is simply not an option, if that happens then the whole of the middle east will erupt, that part of the world is like a tinderbox, and you can bet that a lot of the other arab nations and maybe even russia would stand behind Iran, they would destroy israel if that happened quite frankly, the arab nations would launch a ground attack in my opinion on Israel, the only reason why israel gets away with so many things is that it is our only real foothold in that part of the world.

I would agree that option 3 would be most likely, however Israel complicates matters. Air strikes just won't get it done. They never have as they just up and move the operation somewhere else. The whole infrastructure for supporting further R&D and enrichment has to be taken out, and the only way to do that is either feet on the ground, or nuclear strikes. You can bet your bottom dollar that if Iran ever looks like it's going to go nuclear then Israel will take them out first. The only way that Israel survives is by having an advantage against every surrounding arab nation - as soon as that's being threatened then Israel will do everything in its power to maintain the status quo because as soon as someone else is on a level playing field with them then they'd be destroyed.

Russia would not get behind Iran. They have oil contracts there, but it's not worth them risking war over. They'll make noises, they might even sabre rattle, but ultimately they'd more than likely end up abstaining. China, the only other power that could cause problems wouldn't intervene as they simply don't care. They don't see it as any of their business.

No arab nation would dare attack Israel. As you've already stated, Israel get away with anything on the international stage already - through attacking them you legitimise any defensive action that they take - and when they have nukes to throw around, that's the last thing you want. Israel already have the nuclear capability to wipe out the rest of the middle east at will.

So we're back to square one - if the Iranian's continue to push their nuclear agenda then eventually something will have to be done - the only question is whether you go down the conventional route, or whether you endorse nuclear strikes. No one wants an invasion, or war, but if that's or starting to fire nukes, then you'll see an invasion.

Hopefully though, as you say, we can scare the Iranians into reform as realistically, it's the only chance that any of us have.

[james_ram]

Our relationship with America was used as context for Israel's relationship with America, which if anything, is even stronger than the one we share with them. It's the nature of this relationship, and the strength of it that will determine what eventually happens with Iran. You underestimate just how far America are willing to go on behalf of Israel.

The list of Republican nominees are leading figures within the party - along with the majority leader, John Boehner, another staunch supporter of Israel. You're underestimating just how difficult the Republicans can make it for Obama, whether they're in office or not. They now control the House and are within a hair's breadth of taking the Senate, and with it Congress. At that point Obama can forget about achieving anything as they can nix everything he puts before them.

It won't come to that though, as the vast majority of the Democratic party share the same view on Israel - it has the right to protect itself. Obama's tried to soften US foreign policy relating to Iran, but whenever he does, someone from the party speaks out. If push ever came to shove, it doesn't really matter what Obama wants personally as there's enough pressure that can be brought to bear from within his own party, not to mention the Republican party, to force his hand.

However, again, it wouldn't come to that - Obama's already on record for the potential use of nuclear strikes against Iran if necessary. No one of significance, on either side of the political spectrum in America rules out the use of nuclear strikes against Iran if it were the only way of stopping them getting a nuclear weapon, including Obama.

Do you think it's more tolerable for Obama to put troops into Iran via conventional warfare, or to nuke them? America don't want to use nukes - that's why they've recently ruled out nuclear strikes against everyone bar Iran and North Korea - the caveat to that was that any attacks against the United States would be met with a massive conventional response. This stance alone proves that the Americans find it more morally conscionable to use conventional means over nuclear strikes.

I would agree that option 3 would be most likely, however Israel complicates matters. Air strikes just won't get it done. They never have as they just up and move the operation somewhere else. The whole infrastructure for supporting further R&D and enrichment has to be taken out, and the only way to do that is either feet on the ground, or nuclear strikes. You can bet your bottom dollar that if Iran ever looks like it's going to go nuclear then Israel will take them out first. The only way that Israel survives is by having an advantage against every surrounding arab nation - as soon as that's being threatened then Israel will do everything in its power to maintain the status quo because as soon as someone else is on a level playing field with them then they'd be destroyed.

Russia would not get behind Iran. They have oil contracts there, but it's not worth them risking war over. They'll make noises, they might even sabre rattle, but ultimately they'd more than likely end up abstaining. China, the only other power that could cause problems wouldn't intervene as they simply don't care. They don't see it as any of their business.

No arab nation would dare attack Israel. As you've already stated, Israel get away with anything on the international stage already - through attacking them you legitimise any defensive action that they take - and when they have nukes to throw around, that's the last thing you want. Israel already have the nuclear capability to wipe out the rest of the middle east at will.

So we're back to square one - if the Iranian's continue to push their nuclear agenda then eventually something will have to be done - the only question is whether you go down the conventional route, or whether you endorse nuclear strikes. No one wants an invasion, or war, but if that's or starting to fire nukes, then you'll see an invasion.

Hopefully though, as you say, we can scare the Iranians into reform as realistically, it's the only chance that any of us have.

When you say 'fire nukes' are you saying nukes large enough and destructive enough to destroy the whole of Iran? Or just individual cities and towns? Because you saying that the American public won't have an 'appetite' for war, suggests that they would have an appetite for mercilessly destroying a whole nation. Somehow I don't think they would and both the Republicans and Democrats would know that.

[StaffsRam]

No, I'm not suggesting that the Americans would nuke Iran off the face of the earth. There would be strategic nuclear strikes against what they deemed key installations to the furthering of their nuclear program.

The Jewish population in America accounts for about 2% of the population, however, of those, 94% reside within 13 key electoral college states, which combined have enough electors to elect the President. That's why neither the Democrats or Republicans can afford to take a soft stance on Iran, they'd make themselves unelectable.

[MorecambeRam]

BAHAHAHAHAHA Daily Mail reader, right?

It's their job. You know there's a possibility of dieing. If you think signing a bit of paper at the age of 18 makes you a hero, think again. These are lads picked on purpose from poorer areas of the United Kingom...Wales being a good example. That doesn't make them heroes.

I could do their job, i like it, i very nearly did it. My mate - Kenji Ara must be the only Japanese officer in the army. Based at Sandhurst now. he's no hero. Nor is my mate James Thwaite in the Paratroopers...or Shaun Templeton in the Queens Guards.

The innocent Afghans that die get ushered somewhere. Who knows where. Not on the news that's for sure.

We're in a war with no cause, that's the disgrace....

I can see how the whole repatriation process can look to others. I personally don't think we should parade the dead.....not for dieing in this war.

Have you lost anyone in Afghan?This post is a piss take yeah????

[GboroRam]

Thread has run its course. People have taken offense and it's time to stop.