Skidmarks From UK - England, joined Dec 2004, 7121 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1739 times:
Nope, too late now. They do a good job and do it well. All these people wailing about the rights and wrongs, about the casualties and who did it - when you sign up to be a serviceman, you sign up to take the rough with the smooth.
It is really tragic we have had to suffer 100 casualties but the Iraqi's, the ordinary Iraqi's, have suffered a lot more than that. More than we ever will. And I mean before the 2 wars.
BHXFAOTIPYYC From Portugal, joined Jun 2005, 1644 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1730 times:
No. 100 is just a number that comes after 99 and before 101. The 99th killed in action was as deeply regretable as the 1st killed. Sky News annoyed me milking this this magic 100 number tonight, so I switched off. Can't believe that they wheel all the relatives out to have a go at the UK government, although I didn't like what I heard about the soldier who had to give up his body armour because they didn't have any and got killed at a checkpoint.
Breakfast in BHX, lunch in FAO, dinner in TIP, baggage in YYC.
Pe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19230 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1724 times:
People join the military in order to fight for their country or protect something and to do whatever they are told to do to that end. Even if it was an illegal and unjust war, they still have a role to perform. It is possible that death would be involved in the execution of their roles. What is the problem? If they don't want the risk of death through war or an attack, why join the military? Seems rather two-faced, I think.
"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."