Not that different from joining any army really, but especially if the alternative is being a peasant barely making enough to survive in the arse end of China. Doubt many of them are giving up cushy office jobs for this.
Basic pay for recruits in the British army is around £25 grand. You could probably earn more than that delivering parcels in Barnsley, where the likelihood of getting blown up is minimal, but I can still see why many young men chose Afghanistan over Barnsley.
I found Barnsley quaint on my two visits. Far worse places. If I was forced to join one of them the Navy sounds quite nice. The adverts suggest you just play football and go on nights out.
I knew a bloke who joined the Household Cavalry. After a year stationed in Knightsbridge, riding in Hyde Park every morning and sitting in a sentry box in Whitehall in the afternoons, he got told to pack his bags and get ready to leave for Kosovo in the morning. His first reaction was, "That wasn't in the brochure..."
Tbph mate, like you I don't see anything unusual in it at all. Hence why I'm not really sure why Zelenskyy is making such a big deal about, other than to attract mr china, china, china attention. Brits went to the Ukraine and we are only a fraction of the population of China.
Combination of money, and maybe thinking the West is evil (common theme in a lot of their domestic movies)- they probably thought they were doing a patriotic duty even though their country itself wants nothing to do with this war.
World War 2, we had quite a number of foreigners fighting for us from neutral countries, or countries who hadn't yet joined the war effort when enlisting for us. Yeah, I don't think the Chinese government itself was directly behind this.
KYIV, April 13 (Reuters) - Over 20 people were killed by a Russian missile strike on the northern Ukrainian city of Sumy on Sunday, its acting mayor Artem Kobzar said. "The Russians hit the city of Sumy with missiles, killing civilians," Andriy Yermak, the Ukrainian president's chief of staff, said in a post on X. https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...er-20-dead-russian-missile-strike-2025-04-13/ please log in to view this image
Russia claim they were targeting Ukranian officers, but.....they were using civilians as human shields. please log in to view this image
This is becoming a theme abroad apparently They were absolutely positive that these officers hang out at the local kindergarten by chance?
I personally believe the IDF massively screwed up in this instance and deserve the criticism, but at the same time I am struggling to recall another conflict in the history of the BBC's existence, anywhere else in the world, where it was seen as a sensible use of public funding to commission multiple audio forensics experts to count the number of bullets fired in a five-minute exchange. Why does the BBC apply this microscopic level of analysis to Israel and Israel alone?
BBC articles and videos on the conflict in Sudan since 2019 (30 million people affected): 10 pages. BBC articles and videos on the conflict in Gaza since 2021 (2 million people affected): 42 pages.
I’ve mentioned it before, but the war in Sudan is a civil war, no less messy and tragic for the people involved than any war, but one of internal struggle, not dissimilar to Myanmar and other civil wars around the planet. The ‘war’ in Gaza has a special focus imo, because it’s an occupying force, funded, armed and given diplomatic immunity by us, the US and many western nations, enacting what looks very much like ethnic cleansing in the name of ‘self defence’ This isn’t a rebel force trying to overthrow a corrupt military junta. It is a fully developed ‘western’ state attempting to annexe more land for themselves at the expense of the native population, a conflict that has been going on since Israel’s inception. They have all the trappings and luxuries of western intelligence, military might and are international leverage. And imo it is only right that intense scrutiny in placed upon them, especially given that they are bombing schools, hospitals, homes, refugee camps etc and have been deliberately targeting medical staff. This scrutiny is especially pertinent given that Israel has banned journalists from entering Gaza to report on what is happening, as clearly they are trying to hide what they are doing from the world.
You make a strong case and I agree with you to an extent. But my comparison wasn't just to Sudan. As said, I can't recall seeing this level of analysis applied to any conflict anywhere in the world. This includes Ukraine, and also - quite importantly - to our own military's operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Were we not also a fully developed western power acting as an occupying force? I also note that you and many, many others look to mainstream media as a moral voice or as providing an ethical barometer. This is a grave mistake and only a very modern development that has evolved as mms has tried to stay relevant and in line with the hyper-opinionated and sensationalist world of social media. The media's role first and foremost is to report on facts in a balanced and impartial way. This is especially true if said media uses public money to do its reporting. The media has no more moral authority on any subject than you or me. So in principle I have zero problem with the BBC using my license fee to pay audio forensics experts to count bullets fired in an exchange that killed just over a dozen people. My problem is that I have never seen the BBC feel compelled to do this for any other conflict in its history. And it is at that point where, due to this discrepancy, reporting of facts degenerates into an ethical commentary.
Yeah, sorry but I agree with Solid on this. Your comments read very much like an attempt to deflect from the atrocities that the IDF are committing. ‘don’t look at us, look over there at what they are doing’
