|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The universal soldier and (non)support of the troops
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I'm tired of seeing "support the troops" car stickers and other such. In the old 1960s song "the universal soldier" is blamed for war and it leaves out the leaders. I hear lots of discussion of the reasons for the various current wars, particularly since the retaliation for terror attacks has been returned on Afghanistan somewhere between 10 and 1000-fold but hadn't thought of the blame that is due to those doing the actual fighting and killing themselves. So let's start blaming soldiers for wars because blaming leaders does not seem to have any effect. And let's get rid of those 'support our troops' stickers please.
[ 10. November 2014, 19:07: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
So let's start blaming soldiers for wars because blaming leaders does not seem to have any effect.
No.
Love,
The daughter of a Viet Nam veteran.
[ 03. December 2010, 18:13: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Difficult one, this. I certainly don't think we should be blaming the troops (not least because that lets the leaders, who are really to blame, off the hook).
BUT we have volunteer armed forces and many of those fighting now will have joined up after the current round of wars began. So I do think that they bear some responsibility for their continuation.
OTOH, quite a lot of them- particularly infantry rankers- join up because it is, frankly, just about the best of the very few jobs available for young men with few qualifications in deprived post-industrial areas. So I can't blame them. I feel sorry for them, and quite angry on their behalf that this is all our society can offer them.
Officers, territorials and those who do have a choice- perhaps that's different. But now we've scuttled out of Iraq (and that was simply criminal, and anyone who chose to be part of it was an accessory to a crime) the morality of the Afghan war is very far from being black and white.
[ 03. December 2010, 18:28: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I don't know about the troops you may have met, but those that I know who have served in Afghanistan do think that they are trying to help, but that the specific people they have to fight are not just "ooh! let's have a picnic together" types. Sometimes you have to meet force with force.
Remember Rwanda? That one is seared into peacekeepers' memories as the totally wrong answer.
I don't think it is particularly fair to disparage all troops just because you aren't comfortable with the actions of a few.
BTW, do you object to supporting the police in their daily round, even if that does mean support when they have to take firm physical action? Do you support the right of other people to shoot at police (something which does actually happen)?
There is a proper right to question those in charge if they fail to keep their troops in line, just as troops who step over line should face consequences that matter.
But that shouldn't extend to disliking everyone.
Are you suffering from some ill-suppressed guilt about the Empire or something?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
no_prohet
The armed forces, UK,USA & Canadian and evryone else who is in Afghanistan Deserve our respect and support. I live in a base town, now yes naval but we send ships to back stop the forces in Afghanistan .When I roomed with a friend of mine and he was thus deployed I always dreaded the idea that I would have to , in the event of the worst happening go and be there when she was informed.
Our military people take extradordinary risks for us and always have, when our prople were doing peacekeeping in any number
of places they had to lean on their reputation for as being fair cause they didn't have any fire power a 9mm pistol and a FN C1 rifle with 10 rounds. UK & USA forces took the same risks in other places.
We can not behave as we did when Viietnam was a hot war. The people we are fighting in Afghanistan are the people behind 9/11. And that event is as big in terms of shock as Peral Harbor was to some one in 1941. Should the war be ended yes when we have all the bad lads secured or dead. Sorry if that rankles but this a war that is not like any that
anyone has fought before. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
We can not behave as we did when Viietnam was a hot war. The people we are fighting in Afghanistan are the people behind 9/11. And that event is as big in terms of shock as Peral Harbor was to some one in 1941. Should the war be ended yes when we have all the bad lads secured or dead. Sorry if that rankles but this a war that is not like any that
anyone has fought before.
Erm.
The Taliban weren't responsible for 9/11.
Not really, no.
The 'bad lads' aren't even all in the country in which you're/we're fighting.
Malaysia 1948-1960. We won.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I come at this from several perspectives. First, the number of deaths of 'coalition forces' and terror victims is far, far less than the numbers of dead in the countries where active war is going on. There are several available sources for this, here's one. Soldiers are directly involved in the deaths, even if a minority percentage of them die in their activities.
Second, it seems quite plain that the reasons for the wars ultimately stem from economic conditions and exploitation. Oil. Yes, the specific terrorist people have been drawn from more advantaged groups, but they harbour intense rage over the imbalance promulagated by western countries and backed by force of arms. Soldiers are the instrument of this policy.
Third, I had 3 of 5 families of relatives killed in WW2, including 100% of those who served, and they served on both sides. Most were killed by American bombs actually, including the so called "friendly fire". In WW1, 100% of my family that was on the French side of the boarder were killed. I have seen the legacy of nearly 100 years and several generations deal with the long shadows. There are atrocity stories from all sides within my family for both wars. I also had a relative who went to Vietnam, and another in Korea earlier. They lived but were both shattered by what they saw and did. The Vietnam vet killed himself. So I am expressing something that I understand on a deep level from childhood forward. Being a soldier is a very, very bad idea. If you do not kill, you have to kill others yourself. You might bomb them, shoot them, slit their throats, bludgeon them to death. And regardless of what patriotic things the survivors may say, it is not worth it to have your family member killed in any circumstance.
We need to see the ethics and ideas we practice on individual levels and within our churches come to bear on how we behave as countries and peoples. It must be as unacceptable to murder your neighbour's child as it is to blow up a house with children in it. If soldiers did not do the killing, then it would not happen right? It has to start somewhere!
--
Pearl Harbour is an American icon, I know. Been there, read the history. The part that is missing of course is the prior history of how America conquered and committed genocide in the Philippines in the Spanish-American war (the same war which brought them Puerto Rico and control of Cuba). The Japanese saw a colonial, empire building power that threatened them. And they did about the same things in Manchuria. Both sides have much to answer for don't they. This is too much a tangent here probably.
--
[ 03. December 2010, 20:57: Message edited by: no_prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
I gave up "supporting troops" long ago. However, I agree with Albertus that, at least as far as the average squaddie goes, joining the forces is one of the very few options they have. They deserve our pity - and our help in find meaningful civilian employment.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Tambourine Man
Shipmate
# 15361
|
Posted
If we are to quote the excellent song:
'The Universal Soldier' may be the one who 'really is to blame' but his orders come from 'here and there and you and me'
As citizens of a democracy (however imperfect it is) we surely have a fair bit to answer for as well? Personally, I could do more to stop our leaders from war-mongering.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
So let's start blaming soldiers for wars because blaming leaders does not seem to have any effect. And let's get rid of those 'support our troops' stickers please.
I've had to take several deep breaths in order to keep this as non-Hellish as possible. I say this as someone whose father saw combat in a certain Southeast Asian country and came home only to be spat on and called a baby-killer. This is one of the stupidiest ideas I've ever heard, and I've heard plenty, and only causes more harm than good. It also causes more psychological harm. I really can't see how someone whose family has suffered as much as yours has from conflict can come up with something like this. People never cease to amaze me.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
Perhaps the real support the troops need no_prophet, is proper support when they get back, often physically and mentally damaged?
I suspect the people who have the stickers you object to may be thinking about that when they put them on their cars. Perhaps they're worried about family and friends?
God knows, we've had enough soldiers, sailors and airforce personnel killed and maimed in WW1 and WW2 and all those conflicts before and after.
Surely you know someone who has been adversely affected by being in a war. Or do you really live on a mental 'desert island'. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Sorry, I'm just not going to condemn the men and women who overthrew the Taliban. They were evil. They are evil. As for them not being responsible for 911, they harbored the people who carried out the attack before and after he did it. The Taliban was an accessory to Al Qaeda's crime.
I will never be liberal enough to have that much guilt. Most people in the United States never will. I'm all for ending both wars mainly because I'm sick and tired of US soldiers dying for nothing.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
You've got balls, Beeswax Altar.
I wasn't going to mention the causes of conflict because this thread would go on and on.
Someone once said it was a pity they didn't get Osama bin Laden and eliminate him and save numerous lives.
But I suspect that would just be fuel for the fire. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
Then why haven't we invaded Saudi Arabia which is harboring most of the funders of terrorism worldwide?
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
OBTW, I hadn't read your post about having relatives who died as a result of WW2 no_prophet. My apologies. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
I still think the way you couched this thread was needlessly provocative in the emotional sense. That strategy can be extremely counterproductive. I think it has proved so.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
N-P: If you want to object to armies, you should get active about the use of armies in many countries to oppress their own people. Guatemala is the one I have any experience of, where the indigenous (Maya) people have very little choice beyond street begging other than allowing their young men to go into the army - which then is used to further oppress the Maya.
Contrast this to Costa Rica, which has no armed forces per se (I don't know how thry run their police) and has the highest happiness rating of any American country.
So you may be correct in the thrust of your complaint, but it does seem a bit odd to complain about supporting Canadian troops, whose main occupation for the last 50 years has been peacekeeping (until the Harper thugs took over)
And the point about job-seeking is well-taken - a lot of the guys (and some girls) who have come from (literally) the backwoods or the broken family refuse of our lay-off era into my school have found that the Forces give them a place where they actually belong, where they learn a trade and get some form of employability for when they go back to civvy street.
But why would I not support that endeavour? What have you against a poor kid getting an improved chance? It isn't as if the Canadian army was seriously oppressing anyone, beyond the obvious guys who are setting IEDs.
Do you really object to people building schools in Adghanistan?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
So who's responsible for the 100,000-1,000,000 deaths in Iraq?
The politicians who ordered the troops to war?
The generals who devised the strategy?
The troops who pulled the trigger?
Would someone care to suggest a reason why I should support any of them?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
Then why haven't we invaded Saudi Arabia which is harboring most of the funders of terrorism worldwide?
We need their oil.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So who's responsible for the 100,000-1,000,000 deaths in Iraq?
The politicians who ordered the troops to war?
The generals who devised the strategy?
The troops who pulled the trigger?
Would someone care to suggest a reason why I should support any of them?
You forgot to mention the electorate who placed the politicians there in the first place.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So who's responsible for the 100,000-1,000,000 deaths in Iraq?
The Hussein family?
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So who's responsible for the 100,000-1,000,000 deaths in Iraq?
The Hussein family?
That would be a reasonable assumption, had the vast majority of those deaths had occurred while Saddam Hussein was still President of Iraq.
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So who's responsible for the 100,000-1,000,000 deaths in Iraq?
The politicians who ordered the troops to war?
The generals who devised the strategy?
The troops who pulled the trigger?
Would someone care to suggest a reason why I should support any of them?
You forgot to mention the electorate who placed the politicians there in the first place.
I didn't notice a referendum for the Iraq war in the UK. I did however, see an awful lot of people on the streets of our cities protesting about how it was a really bad idea.
It wasn't done in my name.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Nah, they aren't American. It is always the fault of the Americans. You know that. Else, we might also blame the insurgents and Iraqi militia groups who decided they hated each other more than they loved their own children. The Iraq War was stupid. It should have never been fought. Hussein was an evil and brutal dictator. He was tolerated for as long as he was because he maintained order of a sort and removing him wouldn't guarantee anything better would take his place (at least not better enough to justify the sacrifice lives). Such is politics in the Middle East. Personally, I'm for doing whatever frees us from the need for Middle East oil so we can be free of dealing with the whole region.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
It would be interesting to know the number of Iraqis, Kuwaitis, Americans, Brits, French, Australians and others killed by Saddam, both within his own country and during the First Iraq War.
BTW, I opposed going into Iraq on 'sexed up' intelligence.
The original incursion into Afghanistan post 9/11 was IMO a different matter.
But don't let me stop you getting on the old soap box, Doc Tor. I mean, we need a rehash of the whole past scenario like we need root canal treatment without anaesthesia.
'When will 'intellectuals' ever learn?' ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Guatemala is the one I have any experience of, where the indigenous (Maya) people have very little choice beyond street begging other than allowing their young men to go into the army - which then is used to further oppress the Maya.
Sadly, the easiest thing in the world is to pay some of the poor and desperate people to help subjugate and exploit the rest. They did exactly the same in Scotland in the eighteenth century.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
It might be a pond thing, or a local thing, but I can't recall ever seeing a "Support our Troops" sticker here.
There has been comment in the local press that the army actively recruits only from schools in low socio-economic areas. (Sorry, can't find link). There's a reason ordinary soldiers are known as "grunts" and it's not because of their ability to philosophise about the question raised in the OP. Ordinary soldiers recruited from this area tend to be those with very poor academic school results.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
But don't let me stop you getting on the old soap box, Doc Tor. I mean, we need a rehash of the whole past scenario like we need root canal treatment without anaesthesia.
Okay, so when I say 'can anyone give me a reason why I should support my troops' in this debacle, all you can manage is: it's in the past, you're on your soap box, look at the 'intellectual'.
Considering the good that can come with military interventions (Kosovo, Sierra Leone), we fucked Iraq up from start to finish, and at the same time ruined the operation in Afghanistan - if we're not going to learn from that because being an intellectual and thinking about stuff is, you know, wrong, we'll be marching into Iran in five years.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
It would be interesting to know the number of Iraqis, Kuwaitis, Americans, Brits, French, Australians and others killed by Saddam, both within his own country and during the First Iraq War.
BTW, I opposed going into Iraq on 'sexed up' intelligence.
The original incursion into Afghanistan post 9/11 was IMO a different matter.
But don't let me stop you getting on the old soap box, Doc Tor. I mean, we need a rehash of the whole past scenario like we need root canal treatment without anaesthesia.
'When will 'intellectuals' ever learn?'
Ask and you shall receive..
Deaths due to Saddams regime
The Iran-Iraq war, cost half a million lives (I'm not sure who you want to attribute that to Iran, Iraq, America or China)
First Gulf war deaths
coalition death = 379 (190 directly due to him, rest due to putting troops at risk of friendly fire)
civilian deaths 3500 (pretty much all due to requiring lots of bombing)
and of his own people (20,000, thousands due to letting them think surrendering unarmed was a good thing)
He also was the cause for the founding of Hezbollah (which has caused problems in Lebanon)
In short with your emphasis (on western troops and gulf war), Saddam comes of quite well.
HOWEVER the Iraqi's in his own country suffered greatly
8000 Kurds were murdered in 1983
Nearly 200,000 in 1988
5000 Kurds were gassed
Up to 200,000 after GW1
400,000 through general tyranny (I think this is in addition else the claim of 1m in [wikipedia human rights in iraq] doesn't add up
(also child mortality had gone down, and when it returned 500,000 extra natural deaths happened)
Depending on the estimates this is between 10 times as bad and slightly less than (civilian) fatalities during and since the Iraq war, and these are of mixed origin (I can't see any way to get beyond that)
[edited to remove link gone wrong-should log in before composing]
[ 04. December 2010, 10:31: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
He also was the cause for the founding of Hezbollah (which has caused problems in Lebanon)
Supported by Iran and Syria, not, as far as anyone can tell, Iraq - either now or in the past.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Since when are fighting and killing in policing actions or against greater threats unChristian?
Whether by the citizen in self defense or any extrapolation of that?
Or the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob 2,300 years ago or within a few years?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
He also was the cause for the founding of Hezbollah (which has caused problems in Lebanon)
Supported by Iran and Syria, not, as far as anyone can tell, Iraq - either now or in the past.
I was being kind of pedantic/ironic (having read through the wikipedia pages, I wasn't in a jolly mood-I didn't have the words when I got to the second half)
But notice I didn't say Hezbollah was founded for his benefit...
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Since when are fighting and killing in policing actions or against greater threats unChristian?
Since Christianity started. Just War theory changed that profoundly: some Christians would still see any fighting and killing as entirely unChristian.
quote:
* the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
* all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
* there must be serious prospects of success;
* the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
So, yes. Saddam was a violent tyrant who started wars with his neighbours, repressed his own people and used weapons of mass destruction. Most of this was known when the West backed him against the Iranians.
But even with Just War theory, the Iraq war falls short both on the right to go to war, and the conduct during war. The first was obvious, despite governments' protestations to the contrary. The second was warned about, and has become clear.
Yes, I would prosecute the politicians who ordered armies there against the intelligence and all common sense. But what should we do about soldiers who have deliberately abused or killed civilians, or their officers/NCOs who have tried to cover it all up?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I agree ABSOLUTELY on Iraq 2 even though at the time I was ALL for it and argued so here.
I was wrong. I had bought in to the insane hubris of liberal interventionism WITHOUT the consensus of Iraq 1.
Just like on Sunday observance I'd be intrigued to see any historical evidence for Christian pacifism in the early church. There is certainly NONE in the New Testament. On the contrary.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
<snip>but what should we do about soldiers who have deliberately abused or killed civilians, or their officers/NCOs who have tried to cover it all up?
If those actively involved in war lose the self-control that should be as instinctive as any other part of their role, through their selection and training, then that IMNSHO is a war crime. It's no reason for blanket pacifism, abandoning Just War doctrine or disrespect towards members of the armed forces.
nb, if the selection and training is defective, fixing them is a necessary and vital follow-up, but if we can't get the right men and women and turn them into what is needed, we had better not go to war.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If those actively involved in war lose the self-control that should be as instinctive as any other part of their role, through their selection and training, then that IMNSHO is a war crime. It's no reason for blanket pacifism, abandoning Just War doctrine or disrespect towards members of the armed forces.
And nowhere have I argued that it is.
There is, however, a more nuanced position that lies somewhere between an unthinking 'support our boys (and girls)' and showing active disrespect.
To take an example: my paternal grandfather helped put down the Easter rising. I have no idea what role he played, whether or not he saw combat, or how he treated the Irish civilians he encountered - just that he was there. Should I be proud that he served his king and country, or should I be ashamed that he suppressed legitimate Irish national ambition? It kept him off the western front, for which I'm grateful - but were the Irish?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
So let's start blaming soldiers for wars because blaming leaders does not seem to have any effect.
NO NO NO -- 1,000 times no!
I think the USA's military adventures in Iraq are war crimes, based on a pernicious lie that have caused the deaths of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocents in "collateral damage", and the exacerbation of ethnic and religious strife, among other evils.
But i can't in fairness blame the individual soldiers who, very much by and large, believe they are really fighting for a good cause, due to the brainwashing of USA society, and the fact that if one wants to get a realer picture of the world, one actually has to go out of ones way to find news sources that that do other than spout the corporate/exceptionalist line of mainstream USA media. And most people aren't history majors in college like i was who like to do research.
They are well-meaning people, and they are brave, because they know that part of the job description is to put their lives on the line if need be. And what is worse, many choose this dangerous thankless job because of the terrible job market.
I work at a public library at the reference desk, and nearly every day i see people coming to the very popular career and job testing section to get books on how to pass the ASVAB, a test one takes as part of getting in the military (i'm actually not up on the details of this particular test). These are people who want to work for a living and need to try to find a job. I feel sorry for them, but really can't say too much because of my job.
I have sometimes quietly ask if they've considered the ramifications of their choice but i'm limited in what i can say. In one sad case, a person said, "Oh, i just want to join the national guard -- i won't get sent overseas." She actually believed that, when of course the truth is quite different, and as a reference librarian i was able to correct that piece of misinformation without making a political statement.
As someone who, in his youth, opposed the Viet Nam war, i always thought it was wrong to villify the soldiers, who after all, in many or most cases were drafted. Such villification did not help the antiwar movement
[ 04. December 2010, 17:31: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
Fogive a double post, but i wanted to add that i realize that there are individual bad apples in the USA military, but i don't think it's fair to paint all soldiers with that brush.
And re "support our troops" stickers, i wouldn't display one, because it is too easily lumped in with supporting this insupportable venture. But i respect the vast majority of soldiers there who i count as among the victims of the USA's evil enterprize (and i literally mean evil)
[ 04. December 2010, 17:38: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The Vietnam war has been raised. The antiwar protests ultimately ended this unjust and ill-considered war which had no point except a basis on views of the world and its domination that suggest paranoia but are actually simply about money and power. If some vets got called names and spat on, that certainly pales in the face of people being killed. Choose spittle before bullets.
---
Do I have sympathy and concern for traumatized soldiers on their return from any of the wars past and present. Sure. I also have sympathy and empathy for condemned criminals, people who made ill-considered investments about which maybe they should have known better, people who have abused their families, people who are drugs addicted or alcoholics, and all the others whose decisions and lives have led them to harm, whatever the cause in their decisions and behaviour or in the decisions or behaviour of others. Christ suffers with everyone, without exception, regardless of the cause of their suffering. Christ suffers with the ones they have afflicted with their brutal behaviour too.
As for those who order the individual soldiers into war? Sure, they also have much to answer for. All of them, from all sides. But we've spent an awful lot of time on that as societies, and it is time to even the focus on one person at a time as they commit their violent acts in war.
But for the sake of a completeness, I think leaders shift their allegiances and support of each other like raping patrons at a whorehouse who don't want to pay for their pleasures. They thus beat and threaten to get their perverse gain, and they create bastard children whom they dispise, and by whom are dispised in return, and they all seek to kill the other like some perverse oedipal complex.
[ 04. December 2010, 18:35: Message edited by: no_prophet ]
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
Of course vets getting spat upon pales in the face of people getting killed. (I don't know for sure if that's in response to my post, but if so, nothing in my posts even implied otherwise)
Most USA (and other) soldiers have not been rapists and the committers of similar ghastly crimes. Sadly some have. But, and i know people who have been in this war, most have not.
I reside within the borders of the political entity known as the United States. There is alot about this country and its culture that i guess i just don't get. I know that when i lived in Canada it's political culture seemed more what i was comfortable to me. I wish I had not been such a lack-of-focus youth and had taken steps to legally immigrate and become a Canadian citizen. Now I'm too old to do that. On the points where it differs from the Canadian paradigm, I dislike the whole paradigm under which US politics places itself. (I call to mind the Reagan-era poll which asked US-ians and Canadians whom they most admired. John Wayne or Ronald Reagan -- i forget which -- won in the U.S.; Tommy Douglas won in Canada. Nuff said, in my book)
Having said that, i must say that it is very easy for one to have outrage when one is at a remove. Maybe because i am "stuck here" (speaking metaphorically) i know real flesh and blood people. Most soldiers (US or Canadian) are sincerely trying to do what they believe is right.
And on a practical level, villifying average soldiers would only strengthen -- and strengthen immensely -- the far-right pro-war forces.
[ 04. December 2010, 19:02: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
That's interesting - my brother went to Germany (West as it was then) on a student exchange thing while still at school. His exchangee's father had been a tank commander on the Eastern front, and had been awarded the Iron Cross.
I don't think vilifying him would have done anything good, either. But neither were his actions particularly praiseworthy.
In any event, I thought we'd already established 'I was only following orders' was insufficient defence for even ordinary soldiers.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So who's responsible for the 100,000-1,000,000 deaths in Iraq?
The politicians who ordered the troops to war?
The generals who devised the strategy?
The troops who pulled the trigger?
Would someone care to suggest a reason why I should support any of them?
You forgot to mention the electorate who placed the politicians there in the first place.
I didn't notice a referendum for the Iraq war in the UK. I did however, see an awful lot of people on the streets of our cities protesting about how it was a really bad idea.
It wasn't done in my name.
Yes it was. It was done in your name and mine. You may not have approved, you may have campaigned against it, but as long as we live in a democracy, whenever the people who govern in our names make decisions on our behalf to send men and women to kill and be killed by other men and women, then they are doing it IN OUR NAME.
And that's why we it matters that we vote, it matters who we vote for, because they will be taking actions, making decisions in our name, for and on behalf of us.
And because those men and women are being asked to risk their lives and their mental, physical and spiritual health for me then I have a responsibility to support them - which for me means ensuring them the best medical, psychological and spiritual support possible in the field and at home and perhaps also bringing them home as soon as possible.
Oppose the war, if you do, through every (peaceful) means available to you. But the troops are not the war.
Anne
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
Yes it was.
I disagree. I voted in the elections, but quite how you manage to translate that into a blanket acceptance of everything HM's government does until I get to be able to vote again is beyond me.
Was 'We're going to go to war with Iraq' in the Labour party manifesto? Was it in the Tory one? If it was, you'd have a point.
But it wasn't, and you don't. So, no. Not in my name.
(and neither were any of the troops there protecting anyone in this country. No threat. No WMDs. No nuclear material. Nothing.)
[ 04. December 2010, 19:47: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I was always against the Iraq War. I didn't want the troops to be sent. I think that makes me much more supportive of our troops than the government which sent them off to kill and die in unquestioning support of the very confused policy of a foreign power.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
Yes it was.
I disagree. I voted in the elections, but quite how you manage to translate that into a blanket acceptance of everything HM's government does until I get to be able to vote again is beyond me.
Blanket acceptance? Absolutely not. I don't suppose anyone who voted in the 2010 election, for example, supported all of the policies of the party they voted for (even if their candidate claimed to support them all and knew what those policies were.)
In the 24 years that I have been able to vote, many many things have been done by governments of this country that I have disagreed with or wholeheartedly opposed. But all of these things, whether I liked it or not, were done in my name. Until I seek to become a citizen of another country, the actions of the government of this country are made in my name.
As well as a reason to oppose war this is also one of my main objections to the death penalty - I don't wish to see people killed in my name.
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
In the 24 years that I have been able to vote, many many things have been done by governments of this country that I have disagreed with or wholeheartedly opposed. But all of these things, whether I liked it or not, were done in my name. Until I seek to become a citizen of another country, the actions of the government of this country are made in my name.
Again, no. The government would like you to think that - in your case, they seem to have convinced you - but a government's authority derives from a mandate of the people.
If, for example, the current coalition decide to do something completely batshit crazy that wasn't in either of their manifestos, they have absolutely no mandate for that decision at all. They need to put it to the people, because that's where power resides. They rule with our consent, and they ignore that fact at their peril.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
In the 24 years that I have been able to vote, many many things have been done by governments of this country that I have disagreed with or wholeheartedly opposed. But all of these things, whether I liked it or not, were done in my name. Until I seek to become a citizen of another country, the actions of the government of this country are made in my name.
Again, no. The government would like you to think that - in your case, they seem to have convinced you - but a government's authority derives from a mandate of the people.
If, for example, the current coalition decide to do something completely batshit crazy that wasn't in either of their manifestos, they have absolutely no mandate for that decision at all. They need to put it to the people, because that's where power resides. They rule with our consent, and they ignore that fact at their peril.
You may be right - I may have been utterly brainwashed into believing that the government can do no wrong. I can see that my teenage years under Thatcher and the elation and gut-wrenching disappointment of the Blair years for example might have had that effect.
And of course I may be hopelessly wrong, but although I agree that the government rule with our consent, I think that they also do so on our behalf.
I think that this means that if (when?) the coalition does something crazy and not in their manifestos, we have the right to object - march, sign, sit-in, write, whatever - to attempt to change their minds. I am, as usual, rather fuller of opinion and 'views' than I am of facts or solid information, but I'm thinking of the Poll Tax. Has public disobedience/resistance changed government policy in the UK since then? As has been pointed out up-thread, the Anti-war marches didn't work - nor did the anti-hunting ban ones. Are there other examples?
Anne
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
So given all that, why do you think soldiers sent abroad to fight in an illegal war on the pretext of saving us from WMDs that don't exist at the behest of a foreign power, are doing so in my name?
That's kind of like believing that MPs fiddled their expenses in their constituent's names.
(come on, you're almost at 50 posts ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
And because those men and women are being asked to risk their lives and their mental, physical and spiritual health for me then I have a responsibility to support them - which for me means ensuring them the best medical, psychological and spiritual support possible in the field and at home and perhaps also bringing them home as soon as possible.
Absolutely not. Democracy is not about support it is about opinion and expression thereof. No-one has any responsibility to support troops or wars, and in fact has a much greater Christian responsibility to say "no" and not give any support. To decry the outrage of massive over-retaliation, killing of unarmed civilians, and the pretense that the war has anything other than oil and economic gain as its goal.
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
Oppose the war, if you do, through every (peaceful) means available to you. But the troops are not the war.
Anne
Disagree. If there is a judgement day where each soldier has to meet with each soul of each person he or she has killed, there will be much crying and weeping and gnashing of teeth.
[ 04. December 2010, 21:28: Message edited by: no_prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So given all that, why do you think soldiers sent abroad to fight in an illegal war on the pretext of saving us from WMDs that don't exist at the behest of a foreign power, are doing so in my name?
That's kind of like believing that MPs fiddled their expenses in their constituent's names.
(come on, you're almost at 50 posts )
IMHO (yeah, you'd think I could have snuck that into my pontificating earlier on wouldn't you?) they were doing those things in the name of the nation of which I am a subject - which is to say in my name - whether I like it or not.
I can make my objection as clear as I chose, I can tattoo "I object" on my forehead, I can chain myself to the gates of Downing Street, go on hunger strike, write to the papers, write to my MP, change my FaceBook status, whatever I think would work. But I can't escape my share of the responsibility* for what was done in my name.
Anne
*I don't want to undermine my (for want of a better word) argument, but strictly I suppose that this is about 1/60,000,000th of the overall responsibility.
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
I don't want to undermine my (for want of a better word) argument, but strictly I suppose that this is about 1/60,000,000th of the overall responsibility.
If someone commits a criminal act that results in hundreds of thousands of people dying, they're responsible. Not you, not me. If we're guilty of anything, it's believing that taking to the streets in our millions would change the pre-ordained outcome.
Next time, we'll know just to burn parliament down.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
