the anti war hero thread

[ShunNakamura]

CloudSquallandZidane I took it that people would get that I was talking about people not in the military.

I know many many people in this area alone that while they would never join the military, and some would even evade the draft, if an attack came to our soil they would be up and want a piece of the enemy.

When a battle is brought to home soil many that usually wouldn't fight, will then fight. I myself tend not to like fighting, but mess with my freinds, family, or heck just about anyone in my yard and I'll kick your ass or at least attempt to.

The only real problem with such a civilian army in America would be lack of leadership and centralization.

No back to topic though. You must know far radically different people then I know, cause most people I know when they join the military does it for the benefits and they DO NOT think they will be one to die. Psychologically humans have a habit of thinking things will not hit home, that it CAN'T happen to them. I am certian you have seen such behavior, and that is how the soldiers I have seen act. Now they are good people, but overall they are fairly ordinary. And thus don't actually deserve to be thought of as "Extraordinary".

Disclaimer: keep in mind I am demanding of "Higher" definitions of people . Anyone can be good, but to be "extraordinary"/great requires alot more then just ordinary. And I do not think the majority of soldiers fit that. Many may, just not the majority.

Oh yes I have spoken to family who has served in wars in the past, and you know what.. they never truely believed they would be the "next" to fall.

[The Redneck]

Uh, Iraqi prisoner abuse doesnt ring a bell?

The Iraqi prisoner abuse is some nasty stuff, but there's two difference involved.

One is that while stripping a guy naked and making him wear a leash is a cruel (and stupid) thing to do to a prisoner, it is not an act equal to the claims these guys were making--mutilating bodies, shooting people for throwing rocks (oh, and next time you hear about prisoners or palestinians throwing rocks at soldiers, look at the film clips--these guys ain't lobbing dirt-clods; they're trying to maim or kill somebody, and if someone's trying to kill me with a rock while I'm carrying a gun, I'm not gonna put down the gun and pick up some rocks, I'm gonna use the gun. People have been killing each other with sticks and stones for thousands of years before the first gun was invented.), or breaking legs and leaving them out in 25-degree weather.

The other is that when people do these things, they're punished. The idiots leashing people in Abu Ghraib are being run through military trials (and military justice--both trials and punishment--is considerably harsher than its civilian counterpart) and are being quite rightly denounced by all sides--even the people who care nothing for the prisoners realize that this is a public relations disaster. Likewise the guy who shot a wounded terrorist in a mosque was run through the grinder--fortunately, he was aquitted, but just the chance that he had killed an innocent was enough to run him through the mill. To claim that the US Armed forces stand for abuses because a few soldiers commit them and are punished it like saying that every nation of the world stands for murder because it happens everywhere.

And what if they said "For every one of our soldiers killed, we'll take 500 innocent out into the street and murder them.". I think the violence would slow down pretty quick. The military is here as a preventative against invasion, or forgein attack.

Herein I disagree. Ever heard of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising? The Jews confined in the Warsaw Ghetto found out what was really happening to the people rounded up and sent to "labor camps", and with something like ten guns, clubs and spears made out of table legs, and rocks, they managed to hold off the assembled might of the Nazi military for more than a month--hell, that's better than France did (Then again, we saved France from the Nazis in about the same manner that Sir Galahad was rescued from Castle Anthrax.). Anybody who tried to invade America would find themselves facing a lot of fairly well-armed civilians. And while many of those would be "average Joes", there would also be a huge number who grew up using guns and stalking game, and a lot of ex-soldiers who would know exactly what they're doing.

what do i give to these people for supposedly sving my freedom? my taxes which pay for their lving quarters, food, holidays, trips abroad, training, health care, their child's school, the gun in their hand and the plane flying over head, the clubs and sports facilities, water, electricity, gas and a very very nice pension scheme.

Have you ever lived in Army barracks, ate Army food, or had Army health-care applied to you? I have, both abroad and in the US, and they're nothing to write home about unless home life really sucks. If you can pay taxes to fund studies on whether long-tailed newts are more sexually agressive or how fast ketchup flows; or to fund such "art" as a crucifix in a jar of urine, drawings of men with bullwhips in their rectums, or a painting of the virgin Mary with elephant crap smeared on her breasts; or to buy some welfare-queen's beer, then surely you could spare a little to pay for the people defending your country--especially since the pay is nothing to do backflips over either. Since the "trips abroad" usually mean "you get to live in even crappier conditions for a year or a year and a half--say goodbye to your wife and hope she's willing to wait for you", I don't count them as evidence of pampering either. Clubs and sports facilities are nice, but in the US at least your taxes don't pay for that--the military tells a couple companies that if they build this stuff they won't have to pay taxes on the money they make, and they raise the rates for it because they can.

Oh yes I have spoken to family who has served in wars in the past, and you know what.. they never truely believed they would be the "next" to fall.

A lot of dead people never thought they would be the "next" to fall. Likewise, a lot of permanently crippled people can tell you that they never thought it would happen to them. Just because they didn't spend their entire tour of duty hidden in a corner certain that the first time they stepped outside they'd get their head shot off doesn't mean that their lives weren't at risk.

[ShunNakamura]

More what I meant for that is to try and show that to many people the military is just another job with some good perks. Many many jobs have high to large risk factors. from Cops, Firemen, etc to Animal rescue, Dog wardens. I am ceritan you can think of other high risk jobs.

Keep in mind the reason why I mention many animal services is cause I have the most experience with them and know they don't come without risk.

Yes soldiers risk life, but they don't go in expecting to give up Luxuries, liberty and life. The first two most, that I know do, realize they will give up some things in those two areas. But other people with other jobs/servicies do the same thing.

[lordblazer]

Uh, Iraqi prisoner abuse doesnt ring a bell?

The Iraqi prisoner abuse is some nasty stuff, but there's two difference involved.

One is that while stripping a guy naked and making him wear a leash is a cruel (and stupid) thing to do to a prisoner, it is not an act equal to the claims these guys were making--mutilating bodies, shooting people for throwing rocks (oh, and next time you hear about prisoners or palestinians throwing rocks at soldiers, look at the film clips--these guys ain't lobbing dirt-clods; they're trying to maim or kill somebody, and if someone's trying to kill me with a rock while I'm carrying a gun, I'm not gonna put down the gun and pick up some rocks, I'm gonna use the gun. People have been killing each other with sticks and stones for thousands of years before the first gun was invented.), or breaking legs and leaving them out in 25-degree weather.

The other is that when people do these things, they're punished. The idiots leashing people in Abu Ghraib are being run through military trials (and military justice--both trials and punishment--is considerably harsher than its civilian counterpart) and are being quite rightly denounced by all sides--even the people who care nothing for the prisoners realize that this is a public relations disaster. Likewise the guy who shot a wounded terrorist in a mosque was run through the grinder--fortunately, he was aquitted, but just the chance that he had killed an innocent was enough to run him through the mill. To claim that the US Armed forces stand for abuses because a few soldiers commit them and are punished it like saying that every nation of the world stands for murder because it happens everywhere.

And what if they said "For every one of our soldiers killed, we'll take 500 innocent out into the street and murder them.". I think the violence would slow down pretty quick. The military is here as a preventative against invasion, or forgein attack.

Herein I disagree. Ever heard of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising? The Jews confined in the Warsaw Ghetto found out what was really happening to the people rounded up and sent to "labor camps", and with something like ten guns, clubs and spears made out of table legs, and rocks, they managed to hold off the assembled might of the Nazi military for more than a month--hell, that's better than France did (Then again, we saved France from the Nazis in about the same manner that Sir Galahad was rescued from Castle Anthrax.). Anybody who tried to invade America would find themselves facing a lot of fairly well-armed civilians. And while many of those would be "average Joes", there would also be a huge number who grew up using guns and stalking game, and a lot of ex-soldiers who would know exactly what they're doing.

what do i give to these people for supposedly sving my freedom? my taxes which pay for their lving quarters, food, holidays, trips abroad, training, health care, their child's school, the gun in their hand and the plane flying over head, the clubs and sports facilities, water, electricity, gas and a very very nice pension scheme.

Have you ever lived in Army barracks, ate Army food, or had Army health-care applied to you? I have, both abroad and in the US, and they're nothing to write home about unless home life really sucks. If you can pay taxes to fund studies on whether long-tailed newts are more sexually agressive or how fast ketchup flows; or to fund such "art" as a crucifix in a jar of urine, drawings of men with bullwhips in their rectums, or a painting of the virgin Mary with elephant crap smeared on her breasts; or to buy some welfare-queen's beer, then surely you could spare a little to pay for the people defending your country--especially since the pay is nothing to do backflips over either. Since the "trips abroad" usually mean "you get to live in even crappier conditions for a year or a year and a half--say goodbye to your wife and hope she's willing to wait for you", I don't count them as evidence of pampering either. Clubs and sports facilities are nice, but in the US at least your taxes don't pay for that--the military tells a couple companies that if they build this stuff they won't have to pay taxes on the money they make, and they raise the rates for it because they can.

Oh yes I have spoken to family who has served in wars in the past, and you know what.. they never truely believed they would be the "next" to fall.

A lot of dead people never thought they would be the "next" to fall. Likewise, a lot of permanently crippled people can tell you that they never thought it would happen to them. Just because they didn't spend their entire tour of duty hidden in a corner certain that the first time they stepped outside they'd get their head shot off doesn't mean that their lives weren't at risk.

I'll have to agree with redneck.Anyone who served or serves in the military has my respect.They live in crappy conditions.They actually have to pay for there calls back home when they're overseas.(which international calls are freaking expensive.And the fact that her ein america cell phone companies are doing that anywhere any minutes hting were its free if you call people who are "in".They can do that for the military service men and women I think.You have to have chest hair male or female to be in the military plain and simple.And for someone to complain aobutit (redneck's quotes) i dunno who it is but reall yhtats dumb.So what you paid for my schooling because my dad was in Gulf war and you paid for his "traveling abroad".

Yeah sure shint here are alot of high risk jobs but you can't understand unless you have someone related to you that has been in military service and during war.They'll tell youwhat its like to get shot at.To kill.To see the person next to you get there brain splattered on the bloodsoaked ground and you not get killed.Of course all veterans think they will be the next.Why not your life has no meaning in the battlefield except for the fact that your a number helping the army advance further in the war.Movies don't show war that well.you'll have to experience it for yourself to know.You'll have to see death smell rotten flesh.Heck WW1 whent here was trench battles.IT was horrible gas attacks.People who wer elucky like Hitler who survived a gas attack.I mean killing is killing nad war is horrible.I think they deserve the persk because they barely get crap in the first place.When veterans get back they get a tax cut but they get crappy health care,crappy everything.When the WW1 vets. came back form WW1 they were promised pay fo rhtere service.Why?WW1 was horrible you try living in a flea and tick invested trench were if a gas attack happens you have 2 seconds to put on your gas mask or your dead.Then the artillery shells and all that fun stuff..Then they crossing no-man's land and see your allies cut off one by one thenonce oyu get to the nemies trench you had to face brutal hand to hand combat.Thats WW1 babah and wars int eh 20th century were worse.In my opinoon the 20th century is one of the most violent centuries in human history.But besides teh point WW1 vetts. never got there pay.Vets. still get screwed over today.

[The Redneck]

Yes soldiers risk life, but they don't go in expecting to give up Luxuries, liberty and life. The first two most, that I know do, realize they will give up some things in those two areas. But other people with other jobs/servicies do the same thing.

People don't become cops, firemen, or dog-catchers expecting to die either--having a death-wish isn't heroism, it's just nuts.

But you do give up a lot of "luxuries", and even more liberty in the armed forces, and unless your recruiter is worse than the average you know it going in. The Army decides where you live ("Adequate" is the best possible description for the living conditions, and rarely do they meet that standard), what you do for a living, what you wear, and even what you say (including off-duty. One time I was threatened with a court-martial because I had an anti-Clinton bumper sticker on my truck (my personal vehicle; not an Army truck), and another I was made to remove my beard even though I was on leave--not exactly torturous, but it goes to show just how far your life is controlled). You do what they tell you, you act how they tell you, you live how they tell you, you talk how they tell you, and you even look how they tell you. You don't get many liberties in the Army--nor are you supposed to.

The introduction myself and my fellow recruits got upon first entering Basic Training was typical, and rather descriptive....

"Hello--I'm Staff Sergeant ------, and this is Sergeant -----. We're going to be your drill sergeants throughout basic training and on behalf of the United States Army we'd like to welcome you to Fort Campbell.

NOW YOU GOT TEN SECONDS TO GET THE **** OFF MY BUS AND EIGHT OF 'EM ARE ALREADY GONE!!"

They actually have to pay for there calls back home when they're overseas.(which international calls are freaking expensive

When I was in Korea, it was six bucks a minute for the first minute and something like a buck fifty a minute after that. On top of the fact that if I wanted to reach anybody in the 'States when they were awake I had to call at about 2 in the morning.

So what you paid for my schooling because my dad was in Gulf war and you paid for his "traveling abroad".

Unless you went to a private school, the taxpayer would be paying for your schooling anyway.

[nik0tine]

Now take a look at ur post, that is a baseless arguement. See the comparison...

Their EXISTENCE is the reason why u are not conquered and enslaved sir. The fact that not only would any attacking country be defeated, but horribly massaquered is reason why freedom of speech still exists. People sign up to serve and defend freedom, even though they dont even know u. And here we r in a crowd belittling their sacrifice. Their are soldiers out there right now hunting down Osama Bin Laden to bring him to justice, not just to prevent it from happening again, but also for the memories of all those innocent who died because of his actions.

First of all, let's pretend the United States gets rid of EVERY SINGLE soldier. I still do not believe that anyone in thier right mind would invade the United States of America.
Why? Well, let me tell you. We have an intercontinental missle system and a boatload of nukes. Invade America, get destroyed. Period. (And soldiers aren't doing the destroying.)

Also, your argument that the simple existance of soldiers is the root of my freedom is, well, extreme, and hardly applicable to any real life argument. So, I will counter your argument with an equally absurd argument that has no real merit in the real world. It goes a little something like this: If there were no soldiers at all, nobody would have the ability to invade us.

Also, do NOT get me started on the whole Osama thing.

Ok, Cloud i understand that there are bad people in the world, and yes some of them put on U.S. Armed Forces Uniforms, and go to work everyday, but its totally riddiculous to point to the few and far between instances of abuse and say that it was everyone, or to suggest every1 behaves as such.

Did he suggest that everyone behaves as such? No. Quit twisting his words.

To claim that the US Armed forces stand for abuses because a few soldiers commit them and are punished it like saying that every nation of the world stands for murder because it happens everywhere.

I don't recall anybody making such claims.

[lordblazer]

The existence of soldiers is needed.Why?imperialism and all that good stuff i think.Why use your missile system when we can get them with our intelegence then send a squad in to do a few missions.Warfare has changed dramatically.WE fight wars unfairly.Unconvientional warfare is the war to go now days.The use of soldiers is still needed why?Humanitary aid and lots of other sutff.Like in some parts of africa thats plague with civil wars.MArines usually guad the Ambassy's there when things get rough and americans flee there for safety and they are indeed safe because the presence of the marines will scare off the poorly trained enemy.

[The Redneck]

To claim that the US Armed forces stand for abuses because a few soldiers commit them and are punished it like saying that every nation of the world stands for murder because it happens everywhere.

I don't recall anybody making such claims.

I was showed pictures of soldiers who were mutilating Iraqi bodiees after they were dead, shooting prisoners of war for throwing sticks and stones at them, breaking their legs and carring them out around the 25 degree weather like it's some sort of game. Keeping civilians in prison for 6 months to a year for doing nothing, and then treating them like crap. THESE are not heros, in my opinion. So I'll go along and say that the average soldier isn't a hero. Sure, he'll give up his life for his country, and I can respect and admire that, but if he's participated in the above acts, no way.

Note that Mr. Kikimm refers to soldiers who've participated in the above acts as "the average soldier".

Also, your argument that the simple existance of soldiers is the root of my freedom is, well, extreme, and hardly applicable to any real life argument. So, I will counter your argument with an equally absurd argument that has no real merit in the real world. It goes a little something like this: If there were no soldiers at all, nobody would have the ability to invade us.

Because we don't ever have to worry about riots, or terrorism, or anybody trying to pull uprisings, or any of that fun stuff.

The existence of soldiers is needed.Why?imperialism and all that good stuff i think.Why use your missile system when we can get them with our intelegence then send a squad in to do a few missions.

While my beliefs regarding the"imperialism" argument are, I believe, well-known, I believe you're trying to say, more or less, that we don't need to use a sledgehammer to kill a fly. And since in the case of nuclear weapons our "sledgehammer" will kill millions of people, they're our ultimate last resort--to make them our only resort would be murderously stupid.

[ShunNakamura]

I wasn't trying to imply that they become cops/firemen expecting death but rather that cops/firemen also risk life. *shrug* I am semi-clear some of the time the rest I hit outside. meh.

Well if you want to know my mom's technique of solving problems(and what she thinks we should adopt) is: If you suspect they wronged or are going to wrong you, nuke them until nothing stands.. then nuke them some more. And my mother isn't the only one I see that thinks that way. They are many times Violent beyond believe. Oh yeah that is what they were saying we should have done in Afghanistan, Veitnam and Iraq... not too educated in the effects but if they got ahold of one and felt you were threatening.. well that can be quite effective at killing.These people beleive in torture.. And I mean TORTURE.. you know like skinning people and that sort of stuff.. not this so called white noise torture.

Anyways My personaly believe is to have a type of national guard for National defense, that doesn't go out looking for fights. Osama asked for us, he attacked us and was a threat. Iraq was not a *true* threat.


We are off-topic, somewhat. The common soldier, from those I have talked to, don't do anything completely out of the ordinary. Btw The Rednecks example was far more extreme then anything else I have heard even from the guys I have talked to back on leave. So I have no clue what is more common. But I personally do what I want to when I want to, I could care less what law/tradition/rules say. Unless of course they have, to me, highly reasonable reasons.

[CloudSquallandZidane]

First of all, he agreed with you in the first part of your statement. Second of all, you seemed to ignore the fact that actual times im which American Soldiers fought for our freedom is not often, and most wars or conflicts fought by American troops are done by political motives, not necessarily for the total intrest of the American people. ...

I'm not too convinced that Bush even cares about finding him or not.

U seem to ignore that like i said, them being soldiers is a deterant(*mai speeling r t3h suxors*) against military action, by other countries against us. I agree we havent fought a nesecary war for a long time, yet, we havent been attacked in longer. Also i dont like the Bush Admin. i dont feel like they are concerned enough with Bin Laden, anymore, but the soldiers have nothing to do with the B. Admin. the Admin. hands down the orders soldiers follow them. Thats it, the soldiers cant help it if they r being abused for political gain, they swore to serve the office of the Presidency.

CloudSquallandZidane I took it that people would get that I was talking about people not in the military.

plz, im not an idiot, in fact im technically a genius. I knew u werent talking about soldiers, what i was saying we have soldiers, so people who arent soldiers dont have to fight. So that they arent having their neighborhoods mortered, or bombed. The military is doing right, when the fight isnt at home.

You must know far radically different people then I know, cause most people I know when they join the military does it for the benefits and they DO NOT think they will be one to die.

Well i dont think im going to die in the service, i dont think that i am going to be called upon to fight ground combat. But anyone in the Armed Forces, not an officer, who doesnt beileve that if push comes to shove they COULD be called upon, no matter what their Specialty is, to fight on the ground has been tragically misinformed by their recruiter, because it can happen.

Disclaimer: keep in mind I am demanding of "Higher" definitions of people . Anyone can be good, but to be "extraordinary"/great requires alot more then just ordinary. And I do not think the majority of soldiers fit that. Many may, just not the majority.

I did mistake that earlier, i apologize.

Herein I disagree. Ever heard of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising? The Jews confined in the Warsaw Ghetto found out what was really happening to the people rounded up and sent to "labor camps", and with something like ten guns, clubs and spears made out of table legs, and rocks, they managed to hold off the assembled might of the Nazi military for more than a month--hell, that's better than France did (Then again, we saved France from the Nazis in about the same manner that Sir Galahad was rescued from Castle Anthrax.). Anybody who tried to invade America would find themselves facing a lot of fairly well-armed civilians. And while many of those would be "average Joes", there would also be a huge number who grew up using guns and stalking game, and a lot of ex-soldiers who would know exactly what they're doing.

I hadnt ever heard of that example, but i just dont think that the large of people would be willing to fight though, many would, just not the majority. Plus in the example i provided i think that not only would it take the victory out of any casualities inflicted on the enemy, but it would also have a stolkholm syndrome like effect, in which those close to someone killed by the invasion force, would blame the resistance for the death of that person, instead of blaming those who pull the trigger.

You don't get many liberties in the Army--nor are you supposed to.

To add onto what Redneck is saying, u also have a whole new set of laws and regulations to abide by, not just the civilian laws that regularly apply. Like the example of he provided of the Anti-Clinton bumper sticker, its true, they will expect u to 100% be behind the White House, regardless of who u voted for, some might say u give up alittle freedom of speech to protect it, it all comes with the uniform.

[lordblazer]

and Cops/fireman gt the respect also.WEll in the cop's case int eh ghetto they dont get much respect.But still yeah they pu tthere butt on the line everyday also.But very few cops/fireman has never had Matyr fire at them.

[nik0tine]

Note that Mr. Kikimm refers to soldiers who've participated in the above acts as "the average soldier".

No, she did not refer to those soldiers as "the average soldier". She simple said that she no longer considers the average soldier to be a hero, and they do not deserve respect if they have participated in those actions. I don't know her personally, but from what I have seen around these message boards, I know Kikimm is FAR too intelligent to actually believe that "the average soldier" comits atrocities. Her statement was kind of worded badly though, so I can understand where you got that idea from.

While my beliefs regarding the"imperialism" argument are, I believe, well-known, I believe you're trying to say, more or less, that we don't need to use a sledgehammer to kill a fly. And since in the case of nuclear weapons our "sledgehammer" will kill millions of people, they're our ultimate last resort--to make them our only resort would be murderously stupid.

What I think he is trying to say is more along the lines of "Without soldiers we can't occupy a country and steal thier resources."

plz, im not an idiot, in fact im technically a genius. I knew u werent talking about soldiers, what i was saying we have soldiers, so people who arent soldiers dont have to fight. So that they arent having their neighborhoods mortered, or bombed. The military is doing right, when the fight isnt at home.

What? I don't understand your point. Was the military doing right in Vietnam? Is the military doing right now? I don't even see how that comment relates to the rest of that part of your post. Please clarify, because that doesn't make sense.

[CloudSquallandZidane]

plz, im not an idiot, in fact im technically a genius. I knew u werent talking about soldiers, what i was saying we have soldiers, so people who arent soldiers dont have to fight. So that they arent having their neighborhoods mortered, or bombed. The military is doing right, when the fight isnt at home.

What? I don't understand your point. Was the military doing right in Vietnam? Is the military doing right now? I don't even see how that comment relates to the rest of that part of your post. Please clarify, because that doesn't make sense.

Well if u happen to refer to the quote i was quoting when u pulled this away from its original context, u'll see ShunNakamura was commenting on something else i had quoted of his and commented on which was

Trust me, if someone invaded the US there would be plenty willing to fight and sacrifice alot.

And i was clarifying my response to that statement by saying that the mass of people dont have to do anything, which is GREAT! We have a military to prevent those who would take advantage of the worlds largest economic power. So civilians dont have to sacrifice a thing, the soldiers do.

And about the Vietnam, and the question about is the military doing right, now? It seems to me u have a problem with the leadership, not the soldiers, and should address it as such. The Generals dont even say who to fight, the Administration in office does, and the soldiers follow orders like they are suppose to. They fight whoever the elected representative of the masses tells them to fight, they dont get to say, well... i dont think we are fighting for the right reasons, so im not gonna fight, because they swore that they would fight, whoever is percieved as a threat by the White House.

Did he suggest that everyone behaves as such? No. Quit twisting his words.

redneck proof of us soldiers treating civilians badly can be seen in both the US and UK scandals regarding human rights abuses in iraq.

Well to parade around the Iraqi Prisoner abuse as a defense IS to suggest that the soldiers are bad and out of control, if he wasnt suggesting that he should have pointed them out as a few bad apples. I dont think thats twisting his statements at all. If its just a few people, AND they are being dealt with properly, then i dont see how that is relevant, unless ur saying that the soldiers in general are bad and out of control.

[nik0tine]

No no no... It suggests nothing, and there is no need to have to point out the fact that they are just a few bad apples becuase that is the obvious truth. There is no reason to take the time to point out the obvious. I believe you said earlier in this thread that "You are not stupid" and I agree. And because you are not stupid, we don't need to treat you as such. We aren't going to take the time to point out what doesn't need to be said.

You are just twisting his words to advance your position in this debate.

[Cloud No.9]

actually i do know what army standards of living are like. i come from a very strong military family. my mothers father liberated bergen belsen as part of the cameronians and was a guard in nuremburg. my father's father was part of the team that put the oil pipeline across the channel after d-day. he then served in malta, cyprus, burma, egypt west germany and many places in england. my father's brother served in ireland (where he was nearly killed), libya, belize, germany. my great grandfathers one served in the tank regiment at india, dunkirk and africa where he was taken prisoner. my other grandfather fought and was gassed in the first world war trenches.

my father lived until he was 18 with his mother and father in these places in army quarters and was part of the cadets. and hs recalled many of the places that he lived in and said it was a very good quality of live for his entire family.