A reality show on the frontline of the German army's battle for public support
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Ah, if only everything else in this world was so simple.
In line with the sibling comment, note that the word "we" is subject to a 70 year scope creep here.
But "we" is first of all the plural of "I", so it means above all "people" and there is no "people continuity", at least not over 70 years.
In a sense he says that I (assuming he is German) started a war which is (AFAIK) not the case.
Assuming you are US-American, I shouldn't say that you invaded Iraq either, should I?
Well, people voting term after term pro-war politicians might allow one to say that too. Either that, or they should admit it's not a democracy, and leaders can do such important BS such as going to war without people consenting.
(Not American though).
No, but "going to war and killing people/invading other countries" should matter more than other parts of their program.
>foreign people somewhere far away
That's the problem right there. So it's not that they can't: it's that they don't care.
I think most Americans are comfortable with the sentence "we invaded Iraq" if that is what you mean. Also "we won our independence from the UK", even if their ancestors were English for generations after that war happened, in the sense that the individual is a member of the group "Americans", and "Americans" is the group that fought the war.
FWIW, while Germany should be meeting its NATO quota (it isn't), a Germany that is too militarily powerful could be a concern (same goes for Russia). Historically, it has been bad for Europe (and don't give me the "different times" spiel). It's bad enough that Germany is the economic and political hegemon of Europe, engaging in neocolonial activity to its east (territories Piketty calls "foreign-owned countries") and ordering the continent into an ersatz unity i.e. a unity of soft German domination. The Prussian unification of Germany was a mistake, a European unification under German rule is an even worse mistake. It won't happen because the rest of Europe isn't exactly keen on playing the role of de facto vassals.
It's high time that the stragglers finally noticed that while an EU based on free trade and sensible cooperation and discussion is useful, it will never approach anything resembling a federation. It is a silly, unproductive sentiment that is at worst a distraction.
2) Enough with the reality TV look at boot camps. Basic training is like 1% of the military. It's a bit of a joke, something that everyone has to do but nobody takes too seriously once over with. You have to pass, but much like highschool, once you graduate nobody really cares whether you did well or barely squeaked through. Trade training is what counts.
The article kind of reminds me of that Bear Grylls 'Foreign Legionnaire' docudrama that he did some years ago. Once again turning the boot camp recruitment and training aspect of an oft fabled unit into a reality TV show.
I wonder if the show saw an uptick in recruitment for the FL as a result? (Even though none of the soldiers in the show were current FL servicemen).
A typical day : we had to hurry to be ready at 6 in the morning then wait till 10 that the trucks pick us up ...
Curious, what is the background of that. Basically who would be attacking them and for what reason? I can't think of as Australia as an overly aggressive military power. Does it have to do with the treatment of Aboriginal Australians somehow?
Here's one recent news item: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-42146664
Our forces have fought alongside US and other allies in nearly every major conflict, so our flag and slouch hat regalia would be well known to most on the 'other side'.
Do the rules even apply on home turf?
In typical canadian fashion, with us it was non-violent attacking, mostly verbal insults. But a few years ago I heard an interesting perspective from a US base commander after a real terrorist attack at a recruiting center. He said in short: "bring it on". He would rather have his base, his people, attacked than a school or stadium full of civilians. His view was that it was the job of soldiers to stand between terrorists and civilians even on home soil. I think I agree with his point, but only if we assume that the terrorist attack was inevitable.
How does that stop terrorism? The bad guys could just say they're doing official duties.
Then shoot those people, or, less hyperbolicly, throw them in prison.
If your cops or military have to live in fear of being murdered for merely wearing their clothes, then your/their country has incredibly serious problems and needs to start treating them directly instead of hiding the consequences.
I have zero frame of reference to understand that kind of environment. I literally can't imagine going out to the store and thinking, "Well, I better not wear that shirt, or I'll be murdered."
It's not like soldiers carry guns around everywhere they go (unlike the police).
[1] http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/bondi-synagogue...
It's been on a steady decline in the past decades though.
For comparison, German Army has 178,304 soldiers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/18/books/how-the-cia-played-d...