Libyans destroying wargraves of British/commonwealth soldiers

[JimmyC]

Why on earth would the British military leave their dead behind in a foreign land anyway? This is what happens when you don't bring your boys home. Did the brits really think the camel jockeys would shower their graves with flowers?

I think its because we have hundreds and hundreds of years of tradition of fighting in foreign lands that would have made it impossible to return the dead to British soil so we do what we do...and always have

The Soilder

If I should die, think only this of me:
That there's some corner of a foreign field
That is for ever England. There shall be
In that rich earth a richer dust concealed;
A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware,
Gave, once, her flowers to love, her ways to roam,
A body of England's, breathing English air,
Washed by the rivers, blest by suns of home.

And think, this heart, all evil shed away,
A pulse in the eternal mind, no less
Gives somewhere back the thoughts by England given;
Her sights and sounds; dreams happy as her day;
And laughter, learnt of friends; and gentleness,
In hearts at peace, under an English heaven.

 

[Melvin]

Why on earth would the British military leave their dead behind in a foreign land anyway? This is what happens when you don't bring your boys home.

You have to realize that America has several overseas cemeteries for servicemen all over the globe.

The decision whether to repatriate the corpses or leave them buried with their brothers-in-arms was left to the next of kin.

[PR3D4TOR]

This is how civilized people honor the war graves of their liberators.

[Rich52]

I say we go in, in force, and take the fallen British service members home where they belong.

[Penguin]

There's no need for force, just nonchalantly send an 18-wheeler and a couple of SUV's full of security guards and shovels.  Dig the bodies up, put them in the trailer, and drive them to the nearest airbase that will have a plane with sufficient cargo capacity.  There, no bloodshed, no violence, just solving the problem like civilized people.  The families get their bodies, and we don't spend oodles of cash fighting another war that ironically creates more war graves.

As for that huge cemetery, such decoration misrepresents how soldiers often die.  They don't die thinking about how much they're giving to their country, they die screaming (on the inside or the outside) for mom and dad and to go back home.  Ask any vet (at least those that I know) and they'll all say the same thing: "Those men weren't heroes, they were just doing their jobs".  That's not a sweet nothing, that's the truth.  If we make them out to be heroes, then we'll forget just how terrible that job is for the soldiers and those whom they fight around (their families, civilians, etc.,).  A more appropriate burial ground would be something like Arlington, but with the cause of death printed right below the name.  Then, we might get it through our heads that war is bad, and that we should only do it if we'd be even more screwed if we don't.

Fighting a war is not a matter of national pride, it's a matter of survival.  Not only survival for the country you inhabit, but for the whole world. For instance, WWI was a classic example of huge, antagonistic alliances creating a World War out of a tiny provincial battle.  If Germany, Russia, Britain, and France had kept their heads and ignored their alliances, we'd all be better off today.  WWII on the other hand, was a matter of survival.  Yes, the thought of losing power in Europe certainly frightened every government, but there was also the matter of a dictator achieving world domination that certainly made it a much more important, but nonetheless costly, war to fight.  Indeed, war is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

-Penguin

[uptown]

I realize that the US @ UK both have fallen soldiers and marines buried in foreign lands, but in those were in battles where we've won concise victories and liberated countries that we knew where were on our side. In cases like Iwo Jima we flat out took over and have kept a military presence every since. Peace treaties were also signed. Those past wars were over political or economic issues where the enemy (for the most part) wore a uniform and followed a code of military conduct. Vietnam was an exception as we all know, but my point being that the combatants from both sides had a certain amount of respect for each other in the eye of public opinion. Sure there were exceptions, there always will be.

 But this war on terror and middle east dictators is far different from a war against political or economic ideologies. It's a war against the values and beliefs of the western world. A religious war that's been going on since the crusades. Western governments and it's citizens should not expect to go to an Islamic country and be honored or respected in the same way as other conflicts we've been in before.

I'm quite certain that the intelligence services of the US and UK knew that Islamic extremists would move right in after the bombing stopped. It's quite naive at best to think that you can go in somewhere, fight and not leave a presence there to keep order after the fighting has stopped. Especially in 3rd world Islamic countries where the wars are far from over.

I'm sorry but I'm of the opinion that all soldiers, marines and airmen be brought home to be put to rest. Leave a monument if you must, but don't leave ours boys over there to be subjected to this kind of thing. If we can afford 10s of billions of dollars to fight wars, why can't we come up with the money to bring our dead home to be buried. It only seems proper to me.  

[xbrit]

I realize that the US @ UK both have fallen soldiers and marines buried in foreign lands, but in those were in battles where we've won concise victories and liberated countries that we knew where were on our side. In cases like Iwo Jima we flat out took over and have kept a military presence every since. Peace treaties were also signed. Those past wars were over political or economic issues where the enemy (for the most part) wore a uniform and followed a code of military conduct. Vietnam was an exception as we all know, but my point being that the combatants from both sides had a certain amount of respect for each other in the eye of public opinion. Sure there were exceptions, there always will be.

 But this war on terror and middle east dictators is far different from a war against political or economic ideologies. It's a war against the values and beliefs of the western world. A religious war that's been going on since the crusades. Western governments and it's citizens should not expect to go to an Islamic country and be honored or respected in the same way as other conflicts we've been in before.

I'm quite certain that the intelligence services of the US and UK knew that Islamic extremists would move right in after the bombing stopped. It's quite naive at best to think that you can go in somewhere, fight and not leave a presence there to keep order after the fighting has stopped. Especially in 3rd world Islamic countries where the wars are far from over.

I'm sorry but I'm of the opinion that all soldiers, marines and airmen be brought home to be put to rest. Leave a monument if you must, but don't leave ours boys over there to be subjected to this kind of thing. If we can afford 10s of billions of dollars to fight wars, why can't we come up with the money to bring our dead home to be buried. It only seems proper to me.  

With having sons in both the British Army and US Army I agree.

[HB555]

I need to rephrase this. Standby.

[HB555]

There's no need for force, just nonchalantly send an 18-wheeler and a couple of SUV's full of security guards and shovels.  Dig the bodies up, put them in the trailer, and drive them to the nearest airbase that will have a plane with sufficient cargo capacity.  There, no bloodshed, no violence, just solving the problem like civilized people.  The families get their bodies, and we don't spend oodles of cash fighting another war that ironically creates more war graves.

As for that huge cemetery, such decoration misrepresents how soldiers often die.  They don't die thinking about how much they're giving to their country, they die screaming (on the inside or the outside) for mom and dad and to go back home.  Ask any vet (at least those that I know) and they'll all say the same thing: "Those men weren't heroes, they were just doing their jobs".  That's not a sweet nothing, that's the truth.  If we make them out to be heroes, then we'll forget just how terrible that job is for the soldiers and those whom they fight around (their families, civilians, etc.,).  A more appropriate burial ground would be something like Arlington, but with the cause of death printed right below the name.  Then, we might get it through our heads that war is bad, and that we should only do it if we'd be even more screwed if we don't.

Fighting a war is not a matter of national pride, it's a matter of survival.  Not only survival for the country you inhabit, but for the whole world. For instance, WWI was a classic example of huge, antagonistic alliances creating a World War out of a tiny provincial battle.  If Germany, Russia, Britain, and France had kept their heads and ignored their alliances, we'd all be better off today.  WWII on the other hand, was a matter of survival.  Yes, the thought of losing power in Europe certainly frightened every government, but there was also the matter of a dictator achieving world domination that certainly made it a much more important, but nonetheless costly, war to fight.  Indeed, war is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

-Penguin

I know you are serious, and that scares me. I have lived among folks who thought Peace and Love was the way to go. They were called hippies and were found all over the country in the 1960's, although they seemed most prevalant in the "country" of California, City of San Francisco, intersection of Haight and Ashbury Streets.
These upstanding folks felt that war was wrong, and punished the members of the U.S. Military who were sent to South East Asia to fight a war that was never declared. Why try to force their beliefs on those kids who were drafted by their government? Why spit on them when they came home, if they came home. Where was their Peace and Love then?
It's about your "no need for force" comment that invalidates most of the rest of your post.
Salute to the Veterans of America and their families, and thank you for a job well done.

[bagrat]

what this planet needs is a world leader, to be run as a giant country. change the name from earth  to planet america

[Penguin]

Am I spitting on people?  No.  Am I shoving my beliefs down others' throats?  No.  Do I think that our military is incapable?  Not at all.  I think that it does stuff that should be replied to with, "man, I'm glad that's over" because "good job" implies that what they did was intrinsically positive (building a bridge or a school).  Soldiers prevent a negative consequence or consequences with controlled, destructive actions, but they do not usually directly create positive consequences.  The difference is subtle but important, as it is the difference between militarism (the idea that war itself is good) and Just War Theory (the idea that war should be fought only as a last resort in order to avoid disaster, but not to achieve a goal).  That's my point about this whole matter.  If we remember veterans as "heroes" and give them vast and glorious cemeteries, then we indirectly argue that what they did was intrinsically positive.  I believe that we can all agree that actions such as one scared nineteen-year-old maiming another scared nineteen-year-old with a hand grenade are not positive, but rather a very inefficient and costly means to the end of peace and prosperity for all.  Unfortunately, sometimes there is no other means to that end save for war and we must fight; however, that does not make the individual deaths, injuries, and damages good.  It does not even make the war on the whole good because the war is just a whole bunch of those actions put together.  No, the only "good" is that which comes after the war, and the war itself is only justifiable if it averted a greater tragedy.  Therefore, we should remember each and every war was negative because that's what war is: Negative.

If so, then the idea of such a grave is ridiculous.  It goes against the very idea of a Just War because it paints the war in a falsely positive light.  The idea of a war cemetery is to remind people just how horrible and costly war is.  Now, the cemetery shouldn't be a grotesque freak show, but neither should it gloss over the pain and suffering that those human beings went through fighting it.  Just saying "sacrifice" really doesn't cut it because it'll get lumped in with "loving your country" and "patriotism" as the national anthem plays.  However, saying "death by dismemberment due to hand grenade" really gets the point across.  We need to remember just how awful war is so that when stuff happens like war-graves getting destroyed, we don't start clamoring for it but make every effort to solve our problems with a minimum of violence.

Furthermore, even if we neglect how horrible war is, have we proven that we need to spend our hard-earned cash shipping an entire brigade over there?  The need for force isn't there in both the moral and the tactical sense.  It's like bringing the SWAT team to a traffic stop- it's overkill.

what this planet needs is a world leader, to be run as a giant country. change the name from earth  to planet america

Your humor is too sophisticated and I must unfortunately ask for explanation.

-Penguin

[JimmyC]

america....wheres this fit in on this topic...hijack to the flag wavers..
wtf
play the long game...if this is how the lybians want to conduct them selves then we will conduct ourselves differently...keep the moral high ground I say with an open mind
there are avacados everywhere in the world, dont forget that
<S>

[Masherbrum]

I know you are serious, and that scares me. I have lived among folks who thought Peace and Love was the way to go. They were called hippies and were found all over the country in the 1960's, although they seemed most prevalant in the "country" of California, City of San Francisco, intersection of Haight and Ashbury Streets.
These upstanding folks felt that war was wrong, and punished the members of the U.S. Military who were sent to South East Asia to fight a war that was never declared. Why try to force their beliefs on those kids who were drafted by their government? Why spit on them when they came home, if they came home. Where was their Peace and Love then?
It's about your "no need for force" comment that invalidates most of the rest of your post.
Salute to the Veterans of America and their families, and thank you for a job well done.

You are wasting your time with him and his shades account HB.   He is claiming to be 14 years old on top of it. 

[HB555]

what this planet needs is a world leader, to be run as a giant country. change the name from earth  to planet america

That's where we seem headed. When we get there, post again about how well it works for you.

Penguin,
Again you have made good points, but you misunderstand the American Military when they say, "I was just doing my job".
I urge you to investigate an ROTC program. That is, at it's most basic, a military introduction to high school people. There is no chance you will be shot at by an enemy of the U.S., you will never be talking to one of your class mates one second and having whats left of him splattered all over you the next,you will not have to kill another human, but you will learn some basic information being kept from you by your school and those being paid to give you a well rounded education and you will understand why places like Arlington are not only right, but necessary. A field trip to Arlington for the day may help you understand more.
To not be able to see what I am saying, proves to me that you have not been taught all that I was when I was your age, and even at that, the curriculum was somewhat weak in many areas even back then. That is where the life experience I spoke of comes from. Living here and there, and having this and that experience has taught us things we could never find in books because there are just some things "they" do not want us to know. "They" being some educators, boards of education, and members of our government. Live and form your own opinions. Build upon what you are taught, but never take what you are taught as the only truth. Best to you,

[HB555]

You are wasting your time with him and his shades account HB.   He is claiming to be 14 years old on top of it. 

Mash,
I have a hard time giving up on anyone.
You may be right, however, and I am through with this thread.