The Army And Me

[fauji07]

if you really want to make change in your country people will be more inclined to listen to you if you have actually served your country. yes there are other ways to serve your country but the army usually get more repect because in the army you are willing to risk your life for the country. there are cases of soldiers in the army abusing people but the army is a huge organization and it does not condone misconduct and the only reason we know anything about rapes is because the army actually prosecutes those involved. only a small amount of soldiers are actually in combat jobs anyway. but if you don't serve your country and escpecially if your part of a minority immigrant comunity your average citizen will tell you to go back to whare you cam from instead of trying to change a place you havent sacraficed anything for. it goes the sameway for white people. civilians listen to veterens more than they do "whinny liberals" who havent served.

ps you UK sikhs are very lucky to have an armed service that actually allows you to practice sikhi.

[proactive]

Singhavelli,

Your link does not even mention the British Army, it is about Abu Ghraib and US army. So I ask you again to stop skirting this issue. You made a statement which one would expect from a left wing nut that British Army raped women in Iraq. This is my third time of asking PLEASE PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE OR WITHDRAW THE COMMENT. Is that so difficult to understand? or are you so arrogant that you think that you can make any unsubstantiated comment without having to give a justification. Your comment about invading armies not reporting back when they rape the natives tells me that you will fall for any kind of propaganda provided it is directed at you pet hate, the capitalist west. I can assure you that if any British soldier had raped an Iraqi let alone the systemic rape which you seemed to imply in your comment then the papers like the Guardian and the media outlets such as the BBC would have shouted this from the rooftops. The fact that there hasn't been any such accusations shows that there was no such rapes.

As for the comment about why you live in the west, well millions are on the move and vote with their feet when they claim asylum from other countries because they do not agree with the political set up in their own countries. The reason for asking you why you don't do something similar since you seem to have problems with the way the west is run. This is not to say there aren't any problems with the west but it must get depressing for you to live in the capitalist imperialist west having the 'progressive' socialists view that you have? The Kashmir comment was because in some other thread you said you were a Kashmiri Sikh. The fact that you are born in the west shouldn't be a factor since you clearly hate everything the west represents.

DalSingh101

You are right initially there would have been no outlet for the disbanded soldiers of the Khalsa army for their military abilities but for joining the British Army. But the situation would have been different at the time of the first world war and world war 2. How is it that millions of other Indians were able to do without being in the army but in your simplistic worldview the Sikhs could not? The Sikhs were not exactly a starving community in need of employment in 1914 or 1939. You really need to read more widely and not just rely on anti-western socialist workers party type publications. The British Indian Army was a fully volunteer army and there was no conscription. So why is it that the same percentage of adult Sikh males served in the first world war as British adult males where there had been conscription for the last two years of the war?

It's nice to know that you are aware of the dangers of Islam to British society, can you let me know whether you think given the trends within the Muslim community prior to the invasion of Iraq that terrorism in the UK was inevitable anyway, Iraq invasion or no Iraq invasion?

[dalsingh101]

You are right initially there would have been no outlet for the disbanded soldiers of the Khalsa army for their military abilities but for joining the British Army. But the situation would have been different at the time of the first world war and world war 2. How is it that millions of other Indians were able to do without being in the army but in your simplistic worldview the Sikhs could not? The Sikhs were not exactly a starving community in need of employment in 1914 or 1939. You really need to read more widely and not just rely on anti-western socialist workers party type publications. The British Indian Army was a fully volunteer army and there was no conscription. So why is it that the same percentage of adult Sikh males served in the first world war as British adult males where there had been conscription for the last two years of the war?

Firstly I don't read any "anti-western socialist workers party type publications." I still maintain it was the way that land is divided between sons in Punjabi peasant society that put pressure on families to obtain income from alternative ways. They did this by joining the army. The British had confiscated a lot of land from Singhs who had fought against them in the Anglo-Sikh war (Jodh Singh Nalua, son of Hari is an example), so they had lots of land to give. So what followed was basically a redistribution of land where those who fought against the British had their property confiscated and those who towed the line were rewarded with that land.

The principles behind the inheritance system is the driving force for finding outside income. You question the situation in the run up to WW1 & 2. I would say that this principle still effects Panjabi society to this day, let alone back then.

It's nice to know that you are aware of the dangers of Islam to British society, can you let me know whether you think given the trends within the Muslim community prior to the invasion of Iraq that terrorism in the UK was inevitable anyway, Iraq invasion or no Iraq invasion?

No, I believe that when people are respected and integrated into society the chances of fundementalism decrease significantly. I give Maharajah Ranjit Singh's rule as a good example.

Look at how Muslims were integrated into Panjabi society.

I don't think you can separate the growth of fundamentalism from its environment. I believe that many common British attitudes (across class) and governmental policies have helped bolster fundamentalism here.

For instance, I remember the rampant racism against "asians" in the 70s/80s and how this made many draw back from the host society. This sort of thing leads to the type of scenario which is perfect for the growth of extremism. I draw links between stuff like that and what happened later. I also notice many British people have very negative attitudes towards religion in general. This is a VERY irreligious society for better or for worse.

I personally believe that the thing that needs to change the most to combat extremism is British attitudes towards foreigners and international relations, which is very dubious and imperialistic in nature. So I believe that British behaviour can often make a mildly bad situation, into a grave one. The invasion of Iraq is one example that I think any Sikh should understand. I mean what motivated our heroes like Udham, Bhagat and Kartar Singh to do what they did? Likewise some Muslims will rightfully be cheesed off with the blatant raid and seek to strike back. Some people will go too far and attack civilian/infrastructure targets (like the tube). Ultimately, however they may be wrong, it doesn't detract from the wrong being done by the British admin.

I also believe that the British have a vested interest in maintaining some friction in society for their own purposes and this informs many of their policies/decisions. They do this to maintain a unity in their own people by "othering" various people/beliefs and keeping their own "inline"

[V]

Proactive please google:

rape iraq site:bbc.co.uk

iraq civilians site:bbc.co.uk

And you'll find quite a lot of stuff.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5360432.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/6394593.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7225613.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5253160.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6152118.stm

Same thing with the Guardian -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,926135,00.html

I'm sure this still won't be enough for you since you seem to be stuck with your views :D

[proactive]

V

For you and Singhavelli who don't seem to understand English, I will put this is as basic a way as I can.

Singhavelli wrote

What is the agenda of the British Army? Invade Iraq on false pretenses, rape and torture innocent civilians, and call it a war of liberation, When in reality it is a war motivated instigated and perpetuated by corporate greed.

I asked three times

You made a statement which one would expect from a left wing nut that British Army raped women in Iraq. This is my third time of asking PLEASE PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE OR WITHDRAW THE COMMENT. Is that so difficult to understand?

So does your post about a US soldiers raping an Iraqi girl justify Singhavelli statement?

SINGHAVELLI I'M STILL AWAITING EVIDENCE OR A RETRACTION.

[fauji07]

the army does not have any agenda. its the polititions who make the policy!!

firstly i dont support the war in iraq i think it was one of the biggest avoidable mistakes (and it wasnt a mistake) in history. the polititions are not controlled by the army its the other way around.

but the army can be a very good experience regardless of your politics.

if you pay taxes and shop, and drive a car than you are contributing just as much as any one in the army is to the "racist agenda". the real fault lies on the public who actually beleive the propaganda and vote for the maitstream parties. the best way to stop jihadists is to not alianate the whole muslim population of the world and then prove all of bin ladens proganda to be true, but people dont actually understand the "enemy". i think coming from a comunity that has had its own extremism its easier for us to understand other movements in a less us vs them way. just as blue star enraged the sikhs and greatly expanded the insurgincy in punjab so will iraq except this is worldwide and the muslims are 1 billion strong. if we were only upsetting 2% of the global popultion than kps gill tactics might actually work

but that said i hold nothing against the army its the people who profit that worry me.

[proactive]

You really are doing somersaults in order to justify yourself!

Far be it for me to engage in a discussion over semantics or grammer but do you understand that you asked a question and then in the next line gave the answer. So now the rape is in terms of resources and not actual rape? What's the matter, couldn't google come up with a story about British army committing rape in Iraq? Nice try anyway but as always feel free to do some more word play in order to justify your LIE.

My justification for supporting the war is that it got rid of an evil dictator. The invasion was a good thing but not the way the administration was handled afterwards. The biggest opponents of the invasion were Saddam's fellow dictators or those countries who did business with Saddam. Countries and dictators with similar appalling human rights records who thought this might set a precedent and they might be next were also most vociferous in their opposition. If I am not mistaken India was one of those countries.

The US and UK will leave once the Iraqi govt asks them to and the violence dies down. If as left wing numb nuts want the west leaves Iraq tomorrow there will be a bloodbath which I am sure the numb nuts will then blame the west for again!

Now a question for you. How would you have got rid of Saddam or wouldn't you have bothered?

[sherlsurj]

the way i see it is iraq and afghanistan were run by dictators. look how badly women were treated in afghanistan. public excutions, whipping etc took part their. the army has gone it and done what?offered these people a say by democracy. a government being set up there which is amazing. in iraq saddam hussein persecuted the kurds exactly like the sikhs are persecuted in india. my point is yes there may have been some more agendas but surely giving people democracy is a good thing!

(this is just my opinion)

[proactive]

I didn't want to say you asked a rhetorical question because you would have tried to wriggle out of that as well.

I could have predicted your answer to my question. I asked what you would do to get rid of Saddam and all you did was regurgitate the same old stuff about the west having supported him.

Come on let's have the Socialist answer, how would you have got rid of saddam since you seem to have all the answers for why the west shouldn't have gone in. So now forget who supported who. Just give me the socialist solution to get rid of saddam or just say that you didn't see him as a problem.

[proactive]

Typical response. Most anti-war people are so quick to criticise the war but they have no response to what their solution was to deal with saddam. The same old regurgitation of the same old arguments. So let's move forward and tell what the socialist solution was for saddam? Or I could make this easier for you, what would your mate Chavez have done?