Poll: Would you pay $250 to pay for a proper military burial for someone you do not know?

[SaberXIII]

I don't think I would go whole hog and pay $250 to bury a guy I don't know. If there was a dude who had done some impressive stuff, I'd certainly throw the dude a bone if I could.

I don't mean to nasty but the guys who were the first to charge off the boats on D day, didn't actually do much... They allowed other soldiers to advance but all they did was die (was like "operation meat shield" ). If a guy did something that made you go "Daym, dude is THE manly man!" then I think he should have a big ass ceremony.

Although, I think people in WW1 AND WW2 are fucking hero's but these modern day wars seem more like bullies.

This is the most unbelievable thing I have ever read. Do you understand what those soldiers gave up? Everything. They'll never get to experience what a full life is, they might not have wanted to be in that battle, or the war. But their sacrifice was real.

Think about what you have, what you're going to have. Now imagine giving it all up, never getting to experience what life has to offer. Not everyone amounts to something, but everyone has the potential. They gave that potential up so that others could have it instead.

I can see where you're coming from with this argument, but I think you're glorifying it too much. For starters, you make it sounds like the soldiers chose to fight, whereas in reality the consequences of refusing to fight meant that they lost either way. Sure, many people signed up with a genuine desire to fight, but consider how many of them (particularly the underage soldiers) were swayed by the glorification in war from propaganda. You seem to be confusing 'giving something up' with 'having it taken away', (though admittedly that probably dos depend on perspective); most of the soldiers weren't heroes at all, they were victims. Most of them didn't sacrifice their life for others, rather every other option was taken away from them.
I think the way the first guy worded his argument was a little haphazard, but I wouldn't call it 'unbelievable'. Again, I'd say it's just a difference in perspective, since he's looking at the broader picture whilst you're focusing on a personal one. I'm not saying I have the right to judge, but personally, considering the nature of war, I think the former is generally the perspective that should be taken.

 

[KelDG]

I don't think I would go whole hog and pay $250 to bury a guy I don't know. If there was a dude who had done some impressive stuff, I'd certainly throw the dude a bone if I could.

I don't mean to nasty but the guys who were the first to charge off the boats on D day, didn't actually do much... They allowed other soldiers to advance but all they did was die (was like "operation meat shield" ). If a guy did something that made you go "Daym, dude is THE manly man!" then I think he should have a big ass ceremony.

Although, I think people in WW1 AND WW2 are fucking hero's but these modern day wars seem more like bullies.

This is the most unbelievable thing I have ever read. Do you understand what those soldiers gave up? Everything. They'll never get to experience what a full life is, they might not have wanted to be in that battle, or the war. But their sacrifice was real.

Think about what you have, what you're going to have. Now imagine giving it all up, never getting to experience what life has to offer. Not everyone amounts to something, but everyone has the potential. They gave that potential up so that others could have it instead.

I never read a comment before that made me feel physically sick, but Omega managed to do that. He just smacks of the pew pew heroes blow stuff up brigade. I actually feel disgusted, glad I am not alone.

 

[Auron225]

Not to mention that unfortunately you have to pick your battles when it comes to supporting charitable causes. Very few people are capable of pitching in for every good cause that comes their way, so most of us have to prioritize the things that for whatever reason mean the most to us. Quite frankly there are other matters I would see to first, not because I don't value this idea, but simply because they either are or are related to things that I'm very passionate about.

You've summed up my feelings on this very well - I would like to, but there are a fair few charitable things I'd spend $250 on first. If I was given the choice on someone else spending that money on my funeral (and I'd fought in a war) or not, I'd rather they spend it on someone still alive who is in need of it.

 

[TeamDei]

No family, huh?
I'm surprised the government hasn't thrown their remains in the ocean while taps is playing.

Seriously, throw their remains in the ocean while taps is playing.
Rather, have DoD pay for their funerals if it is a big deal.

"But that's so disrespectful to what they did and blah blah blah"
If you know anyone in the military, then you'll know that most members do not care what happens to their dead body. Most will probably take a $10 funeral anyday. It's the family members and friends that "need" a proper military burial.

 

[Caiphus]

If I had the money I'd be tempted to contribute yes. Not because I have any real extra respect for the military, but I've read about some of the hell that the soldiers in the first world war went through, a lot of the time involuntarily.

But yeah. Poor student. Perhaps if this is still around in 5 years.

 

[Commissar Sae]

I don't think I would go whole hog and pay $250 to bury a guy I don't know. If there was a dude who had done some impressive stuff, I'd certainly throw the dude a bone if I could.

I don't mean to nasty but the guys who were the first to charge off the boats on D day, didn't actually do much... They allowed other soldiers to advance but all they did was die (was like "operation meat shield" ). If a guy did something that made you go "Daym, dude is THE manly man!" then I think he should have a big ass ceremony.

Although, I think people in WW1 AND WW2 are fucking hero's but these modern day wars seem more like bullies.

Honestly, if you read the memoirs of a lot of veterans, most of the army hasn't changed much. You always have some good decent people fighting for the right reasons, but a lot of the guys who joined the army back then were bullies and near criminals as well. It is vastly under-reported because it doesn't fit in wit our popular narrative of the war, but plenty of Allied Soldiers (All countries, not just the so often mentioned Soviets) were involved in war crimes of some form or another. Raping civilians was fairly common on all fronts by all armies, and the executing of p.o.ws was also frighteningly common.

OT: No I would not donate the money, mostly because I do not have the money to give. I also think that my money could be better spent helping the living than burying someone long dead in a way their family wants.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It is vastly under-reported because it doesn't fit in wit our popular narrative of the war, but plenty of Allied Soldiers (All countries, not just the so often mentioned Soviets) were involved in war crimes of some form or another. Raping civilians was fairly common on all fronts by all armies, and the executing of p.o.ws was also frighteningly common.

You'll also note this is true of units that never fought in the war, but were sent to occupy defeated enemies afterwards. Not saying that having fought through the war justifies the behaviour or anything, but it's often cited as a reason why it happens.

 

[lunavixen]

Funerals and burials are not for the dead, they are for the living and while I do think that a persons remains should be handled with respect, there is no point having a funeral that no one will attend and there is little point in burying someone who (by this point will never be identified). If no family will/can claim the remains, why not spread the ashes? It'll do no harm to the decedent.

 

[Commissar Sae]

It is vastly under-reported because it doesn't fit in wit our popular narrative of the war, but plenty of Allied Soldiers (All countries, not just the so often mentioned Soviets) were involved in war crimes of some form or another. Raping civilians was fairly common on all fronts by all armies, and the executing of p.o.ws was also frighteningly common.

You'll also note this is true of units that never fought in the war, but were sent to occupy defeated enemies afterwards. Not saying that having fought through the war justifies the behaviour or anything, but it's often cited as a reason why it happens.

Also true, the occupations of Japan and Germany tended to be pretty horrible for the civilians. Of course the Axis occupations were also horrific and in many ways much worse than the allied occupations. The allied occupations saw a lot of destruction, assault, thievery and rape, but the Axis occupations added wholesale slaughter to that mix.

War is a pretty horrific thing.

 

[Lightknight]

I'd rather donate money to pay for things the living needs. Opportunity cost is too high to spend money on 100 year remains when children go hungry.

I think it's the military's responsibility to take care of the burial of its soldiers. Shame on them for not having done so.

I get that this is paying respect for people who have paid the absolute ultimate price for our freedom. But funerals/burials are for the living to have closure, not for the dead.

 

[latiasracer]

I would, definitely.

My only experience of war is through games and simulators, but I'm smart enough to know that actually being there, must be absolutely terrifying.


Regardless of what my view is on the British presence in the middle east is, (I honestly don't think we should be there, however that is the choice of the politicians not the soldiers). But that doesn't make them any less brave/honourabe, and ll our soldiers risk their lives on a daily basis to attempt to stabilize a country hundreds of miles away, With potential threats everywhere (Ieds/Mines).

So i believe, if you are willing to go oversees, risk your own life to help people totally different to you, Damn right you deserve a proper military burial.

 

[kasperbbs]

If i were to spend 250$ on something then i would spend it on the living. I believe that burials are for the family and friends and if they don't care enough to bury that poor man themselves or if there simply are no living relatives then there is no point to it.

 

[The Enquirer]

The thing is there hasn't been a draft lately so the people who got sent to Iraq had made the decision to be in the military. In WW2 there wasn't really a choice, we needed everyone we could get to defend the free world. Iraq was more just George Bush doing what his dad couldn't by removing Saddam.

Not really. There was a draft in WW2 but almost everyone who fought willingly signed up. So you're half right there. For present day, I'm with you on saying that we are sorta like the playground bully, but a lot of those people did not choose to be overseas. I have an uncle who is in the military and that is one of the few things he has ever known, so if he left he would be unemployed. He doesn't agree with everything that he has to do but for him its better than collecting welfare. He had said years ago if I wanted to join the army he would be supportive and encourage me but now he would discourage me and anyone else strongly from doing it. So don't blame the soldiers, blame the people in charge of those soldiers at the top.

 

[mitchell271]

As a student, hell no!
If I made $60k a year, yeah

 

[Combustion Kevin]

Nothing against it principally,
just financially.

 

[omega 616]

snip

You have me wrong, I meant Hitler was a James bond villain, literally! It was almost good vs evil... Ok it wasn't angels vs devils but there was a clear cut line. You didn't join the army, navy or air force, you were volunteered (if you know what I mean) and you were using equally shit equipment.

These days the first world are launching missiles that cost more than the country they are bombing makes in a year (not fact, of course), we have all singing all dancing equipment that could do stuff from pick the pecker off a flee 4 miles away to flattening everything in a 10 mile radius. The third world has the same equipment from WW2, they use AK47's and rpg's and we have an apache helicopter... It's fish in a barrel, it's mere target practice!

I'm sure if given the option we wouldn't even send soldiers to war zones, we would just sit 5 miles off shore sniping with missiles. The only way they get a kill is car bombs.

To put it into gamer terms, our K/D looks like we are boosting!

 

[Thaluikhain]

The third world has the same equipment from WW2, they use AK47's and rpg's and we have an apache helicopter... It's fish in a barrel, it's mere target practice!

Not entirely true, third world countries can have access to fairly sophisticated weapons, generally not cutting edge but not all that shabby. Likewise, the AK47 is not to be sniffed at. By comparison, the US military is issuing its soldiers variants of the same M16 rifle family they used in Vietnam.

The trick is making that not matter, and modern militaries from developed nations have gotten very good at that.

I'm sure if given the option we wouldn't even send soldiers to war zones, we would just sit 5 miles off shore sniping with missiles.

Well, bombing with aircraft from a great height, yeah. Putting boots on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq were unusual.

 

[sextus the crazy]

I dunno. $250 is more than I'd spend on my own funeral. As nice as that would be, I can't imagine dumping that much towards someone (At least at the moment).

 

[omega 616]

snip

I was exaggerating a little but only to prove a point.

The full weight of 2 first world nations teaming up on a large militia armed with AK's (which are awesome weapons but antiques).... What I'm saying is, in the name of fairness its lop sided!

Come on, we have surveillance drones, war ships, copters, jets and body armour, they have the element of surprise! It's not the weapons race of yesteryear, it's a problem MMA heavyweight champ vs a pensioner with a dodgy knee! As David Haye said "its as one sided as a gang rape" (I say that 'cos I do think that both things are in bad taste)

 

[Random berk]

I don't think so, really. I do think that soldiers killed in combat should be remembered, but if a soldier is killed in combat these days then he has a family to remember him. And it isn't like they could just die unaccounted for, battle casualties in today's wars aren't THAT high (at least on one side, I'm not even going into discussing funerals for the dead in the Middle Eastern countries, I don't know enough about that). A person can go missing in action, but if a body is found then it would be pretty unlikely that it couldn't be identified. And if the family refused to come forward when their relative was confirmed as KIA, then I'd have to wonder why, and what kind of person the soldier was at home.

If it was from a war as far back as WWII or earlier, then realistically any dead soldier turning up now is going to be a stack of dry old bones, and there's not likely to be anyone still living who knew the man that he was. That's a sad end for a person, but at that stage, I can't see a grand funeral being an appropriate gesture. Simply a burial and the placement of a modest marker would be respect enough.