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 ]
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
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'.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :
 
Then why haven't we invaded Saudi Arabia which is harboring most of the funders of terrorism worldwide?
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
OBTW, I hadn't read your post about having relatives who died as a result of WW2 no_prophet. My apologies.

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.
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:
Then why haven't we invaded Saudi Arabia which is harboring most of the funders of terrorism worldwide?

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So who's responsible for the 100,000-1,000,000 deaths in Iraq?

---

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?

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
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?'
 

---

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :
 

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.

---

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.

---

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?'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
He also was the cause for the founding of Hezbollah (which has caused problems in Lebanon)

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Since when are fighting and killing in policing actions or against greater threats 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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
So let's start blaming soldiers for wars because blaming leaders does not seem to have any effect.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne:
Yes it was.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
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 )
 

---

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :
 

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.

---

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

---

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 )

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In any event, I thought we'd already established 'I was only following orders' was insufficient defence for even ordinary soldiers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In any event, I thought we'd already established 'I was only following orders' was insufficient defence for even ordinary soldiers.

---

Yes, and as bad as this war is almost no soldiers have been given orders to commit atrocities in this war, of the sort where an 'I was only following orders' defense would most likely be attempted. This stuff is hidden from the average soldier. If you think that the average US soldier is routinely committing atrocitires or is witnessing on a significant scale atrocities, you have, i hate to say, been as deluded by inaccurate reporting as the folks on the right. It is usually the right wing that doesn't care about facts, but there are some left wing dilettantes who find it comfortable and fun to feel blanketly feel superior to the sort of folks they wouldn't want to have at their cocktail parties.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne:
When someone someone elected in an election in which I have the vote commits a criminal act by going through the constitutional processes of this country they ARE responsible but so am I. (I think)

Or don't any responsibilities come along with suffrage? As you'll have guessed, I'm not a political scientist, but I would have thought that responsibilities such as abiding by the law come with residency rather than with suffrage. So does the vote come free of associated responsibilities?

---

quote:

---

Ooooh - had not expected to lose my apprenticeship asking genuine questions and hoping to learn stuff - I must be growing or something. I suppose I need a new sig too. Is 'yeah, OK, it's in my name, but that doesn't mean I have to like it'? too much?

---

Welcome aboard, Shipmate
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Still waiting to find out why no-prophet, who claims to be in Canada, is so upset about Canadian forces being supported.

Our troops had a peripheral role in GW1, they did not take part in Iraq (Thanks be to the Blessed Jean Chretien!), they have done peacekeeping to some effect all over the world, and they have been involved in a significant amount of attempts to do good things while in Afghanistan (along with a fair amount of combat against some really nasty people). Our role in WW2 (or WW1, for that matter) was, on the whole, salutary.

Exactly what is the problem?
 

---

Posted by anne (# 73) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne:
When someone someone elected in an election in which I have the vote commits a criminal act by going through the constitutional processes of this country they ARE responsible but so am I. (I think)

Or don't any responsibilities come along with suffrage? As you'll have guessed, I'm not a political scientist, but I would have thought that responsibilities such as abiding by the law come with residency rather than with suffrage. So does the vote come free of associated responsibilities?

---

Someone abuses the power given to them by the people? We're responsible in the sense we don't have sufficient checks and balances to prevent such abuse - we're responsible for the health of our democracy by holding people to account for their actions.

If someone abuses the power we've given them, we're responsible for getting rid of them asap, and if possible prosecuting them. In that respect, we the people have failed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne:

[QUOTE]
Ooooh - had not expected to lose my apprenticeship asking genuine questions and hoping to learn stuff - I must be growing or something. I suppose I need a new sig too. Is 'yeah, OK, it's in my name, but that doesn't mean I have to like it'? too much?

---

Welcome aboard, Shipmate

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

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.

---

Basically, I think your methodology is flawed, you choose one side of the Iraq debacle and ignore the atrocities of the long Hussein reign and then generalize from your selected facts.

The word 'intellectual' was used ironically.
 

---

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
We're responsible in the sense we don't have sufficient checks and balances to prevent such abuse - we're responsible for the health of our democracy by holding people to account for their actions.

If someone abuses the power we've given them, we're responsible for getting rid of them asap, and if possible prosecuting them. In that respect, we the people have failed.

---

I think that this is part of what i was getting at in terms of our (my) responsibility.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In any event, I thought we'd already established 'I was only following orders' was insufficient defence for even ordinary soldiers.

---

Yes, and as bad as this war is almost no soldiers have been given orders to commit atrocities in this war, of the sort where an 'I was only following orders' defense would most likely be attempted. This stuff is hidden from the average soldier. If you think that the average US soldier is routinely committing atrocitires or is witnessing on a significant scale atrocities, you have, i hate to say, been as deluded by inaccurate reporting as the folks on the right. It is usually the right wing that doesn't care about facts, but there are some left wing dilettantes who find it comfortable and fun to feel blanketly feel superior to the sort of folks they wouldn't want to have at their cocktail parties.

---

Erm, I think you're projecting.

No, I don't think the average US soldier is either committing or witnessing war crimes. On the other hand, some of them are (some UK troops, too). There's plenty enough evidence to say that for certain. If you want to write Abu Ghraib off as an act by a few bad apples, then okay, but again, there's evidence to suggest that it was systemic, sanctioned and covered up.

Where the rest of your post came from is anyone's guess...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
Is it not hypocracy to "support the troops" and at the same time to suggest "I'm against the war"?

I like theives, but am against theivery?

I like sex but support celebacy?

I'm on a diet but pass the chocolate cake?

---

Are you being 'professionally controversial' again, to stir the pot, no doubt, no_prophet?

Are we now in 'Ethics' territory?
 

---

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
Is it not hypocracy to "support the troops" and at the same time to suggest "I'm against the war"?

I like theives, but am against theivery?

I like sex but support celebacy?

I'm on a diet but pass the chocolate cake?

---

Are you being 'professionally controversial' again, to stir the pot, no doubt, no_prophet?

Are we now in 'Ethics' territory?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
There are troops who think the Afghan war is wrong.

Not many will actually say so in public though.

Here is one who did and was jailed in March of this year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/05/anti-war-soldier-jailed-afghanistan

Saul

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
There are troops who think the Afghan war is wrong.

Not many will actually say so in public though.

Here is one who did and was jailed in March of this year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/05/anti-war-soldier-jailed-afghanistan

Saul

---

He wasn't sent to jail for saying in public what he thought about the (latest) Afghan War, was he now?

Once our troops are all out of Afghanistan (I hesitate to suggest that the war there will ever be over) I'm sure many more will speak up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
Is it not hypocracy to "support the troops" and at the same time to suggest "I'm against the war"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:

I like theives, but am against theivery?

I like sex but support celebacy?

I'm on a diet but pass the chocolate cake?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I too found the whole premise of the OP rather repellant, particularly as I have a couple of mates serving out in Afghanistan right now; they go to our church and we pray for them every week, so the suggestion that I should not support/ pray for/ drink and chat with/ them I find highly objectionable. And, yes, you can be against the war and still support our troops: my business partner's brother is in the military and is often deployed to Afghanistan; my business partner frequently complains that he doesn't know what the hell his brother is doing out there and that he wishes the government wouldn't keep sending him there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
So if you are making an argument for 100% Ghandian pacificism, that really is another subject than that of this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
The point is that soldiers are to blame for wars along with those who remotely give orders.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I too found the whole premise of the OP rather repellant, particularly as I have a couple of mates serving out in Afghanistan right now; they go to our church and we pray for them every week, so the suggestion that I should not support/ pray for/ drink and chat with/ them I find highly objectionable. And, yes, you can be against the war and still support our troops: my business partner's brother is in the military and is often deployed to Afghanistan; my business partner frequently complains that he doesn't know what the hell his brother is doing out there and that he wishes the government wouldn't keep sending him there.

---

Here's where I might differentiate mightily.

It is one thing to support an individual, and care, worry and pray for him/her. It is quite another support the individual as a soldier. But then it takes rather more mental acrobatics to separate out the individual from the individual-who-knowingly-trained-up-to-kill-other-people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
The point is that soldiers are to blame for wars along with those who remotely give orders.

---

So how exactly was Private Grunt responsible for the invasion of Iraq? I might as well say that you, as a Christian, are responsible for religious persecution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leaf:
Sorry to double post.

It occurred to me that we have had a real-life practical demonstration of this soldier-shaming policy: returning Vietnam vets accused of being "baby killers." It does not seem to me that it made the United States a more peaceable country. It did seem to cause the vets distress, without having an impact on national policy. So it was personally cruel and strategically ineffective.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
The idea that being a Christian means I and anyone else who professes to be one is responsible for persecutions is insensible. A major difference is that Christianity has principles of peace, love, forgiveness etc as its core, while soldiering has conflict and killing as its core. Even if some misguided people have decided that God likes retribution: compare with the example of Jesus please.

---

Luke 18:11
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
I get the impression we are talking at cross purposes here.

It seems to be either Ethics 1 or Practical Reality 1 and never the twain shall meet.

A sort of 'Duelling Soapboxes' show.

Neither party seems to be convincing the other.

Well, I suppose posters are voicing their opinions.

Apart from that very little seems to be happening.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Okay, I'll pose a question: what place has individual conscience in directing a serving soldier's behaviour?
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
A good question, if taken out of the 'hypothetical' context.

A wonderful example is from WW1, where the sailor who was ordered to fire the torpedo to sink the Lusitania refused. He spent the rest of the War in a German naval prison. The captain, who did fire, was lost at sea.

They hadn't got to the sailor and obviated his disinclination to automatically follow orders. Whether he panicked and just couldn't do it, or whether he made a rational moral decision in real time, I don't know. The effect was the same. He didn't do it.

Whether most people, after being trained to make split second decisions in a war situation, can pause, often at the possible expense of life or limb, then take whatever time it takes to make a moral decision after weighing all the issues, is, I think, open to question.

I suspect a lot has to do with mental makeup and the person's upbringing and previous training.

An episode narrated by an injured Argentine infantryman from the Falklands War might illustrate. He signalled to a Royal Marine that he was injured. After checking him out the bootneck lifted him on his shoulders and took him back for treatment. The man survived. I think that RM was a hero. A real hero.
 

---

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Okay, I'll pose a question: what place has individual conscience in directing a serving soldier's behaviour?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Okay, I'll pose a question: what place has individual conscience in directing a serving soldier's behaviour?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Okay, I'll pose a question: what place has individual conscience in directing a serving soldier's behaviour?

---

...

Probably I shouldn't have been surprised responses of soldiers in helicopters etc shooting people like it's a video game, such this youtube link (it;s on another page, youtube wanted login to view). It does not seem conscience is actually involved.

---

It may very well be in that particular instance but to generalize from it (in answer to a question that's done the rounds of the Ethics/Moral Theology classrooms since Adam was a lad) may be going too far IMHO.

I'm not sure that anything you or Doc Tor have said on this thread have not been said many, many times before.

Not that I consider my poor contributions 'brilliant' or 'totally original'. It's just that I think you are just rehashing ancient stuff.

Perhaps it proves the old adage:'Moral Theology is Just for Moral Theologians'. Or those who like that sort of thing. It would bore the average person in the street to death.

Would it have any effect on a serving soldier or exsoldier?

That would be a good 'efficacy' test.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I think an important part of the debate is not whether a soldier on the battlefield can maintain their conscience - I think it's demonstrable that they can - but under what situations their conscience is sublimated (if that's the right word).

I think it's also demonstrable that soldiers are trained to obey orders first, and that training can be used for both good and ill. The recent slew of Wikileaks regarding the treatment of Iraqi prisoners by Iraqi security forces have shown that it's not just one soldier turning a blind eye to abuse, it's a whole army. Some very senior officers have, deliberately and systemically, ignored and covered up some grave crimes. Why would they do that?

And almost as importantly, would they do that in peace time?

We've had (in the UK) a number of unexplained suicides at a number of training bases - unexplained mainly because no one involved, either as perpetrator or witness, is talking. And IIRC, a recent report on sexual assault in the US military, indicated it was rife, but successful prosecutions were very few.

Going to fight in an illegal war is one level of wrong. Acting illegally when there is another. But is behaviour endemic because it's the army, or because of the culture out of which the army draws its personnel?
 

---

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Going to fight in an illegal war is one level of wrong. Acting illegally when there is another. But is behaviour endemic because it's the army, or because of the culture out of which the army draws its personnel?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
This sounds so Daily Mail. The army gets its squaddies from those common, depressed, criminal, Northern places, so it's not surprising they don't have the same comfortable morally-superior viewpoint as people such as I. Really such behaviour as I would never stoop to is only to be expected.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
I can see very well what you're saying. What you and some others, both on this thread and on the poppy thread last month, seem unable to grasp is how condescendingly holier-than-thou you come across as. I'm no longer a Christian but you are, so I suggest you take the lead in following your Saviour's advice about removing the plank.

---

quote:

---

But is [illegal]behaviour endemic because it's the army, or because of the culture out of which the army draws its personnel?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What, that 'supporting our troops' is at best an ambiguous statement that lacks nuance, and at worst, is an oppressive phrase hijacked by governments to quash dissent. Really holy, that.

My support is dependent on what they're doing and why they're there. You keep on telling everyone else why they think they way they do, but what do you base your opinion on?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
...in Canada, where if one says they don't support the troops even if not supporting the war, somehow this is horrifying.

---

Perhaps this is because "troops" are actually "human beings" who deserve support, encouragement, empathy? Even if you think they have chosen the wrong career path, it seems to me that there are more productive and humane ways to reduce the appeal of soldiering, if that is what you wanted.

If not: Don't forget to direct some of your moral outrage at the wives, fiancées, girlfriends and children of soldiers, who depend on that immoral income! Please go immediately to your nearest Military Family Resource centre and yell your disapproval of them.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 

 

---

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :
 
... quashing of dissent...
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leaf:
If not: Don't forget to direct some of your moral outrage at the wives, fiancées, girlfriends and children of soldiers, who depend on that immoral income! Please go immediately to your nearest Military Family Resource centre and yell your disapproval of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leaf:
If not: Don't forget to direct some of your moral outrage at the wives, fiancées, girlfriends and children of soldiers, who depend on that immoral income! Please go immediately to your nearest Military Family Resource centre and yell your disapproval of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I sincerely don't understand this vitriol against those who serve in the military. Save your anger and bitterness for the politicians who misuse their service. Most service personnel are trying to serve their country honorably. Most have done multiple tours in war zones with little or no recognition and many coming back maimed - either physically or mentally. What I'm seeing is a repeat of the Viet Nam era. We have a volunteer army now, but many joined after the 9/11 attacks to defend their country and many have joined in the past few years as it is the one of the few jobs that can put food on the table for their families.

---

quote:

---

Easy to condemn from behind your keyboard.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

It's a fact that more than a small number of soldiers, from private to colonel, have witnessed or taken part in crimes against the civilian population of Iraq.

---

quote:

---

There is a systemic cover-up, and yes, of course I blame those who are ordering the cover-up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

It's a fact that more than a small number of soldiers, from private to colonel, have witnessed or taken part in crimes against the civilian population of Iraq. There is a systemic cover-up, and yes, of course I blame those who are ordering the cover-up.

But if you or I reported a crime to the police, who then refused to investigate it because it wasn't politically expedient for them to do so, I hope we'd have the balls to raise merry hell. If wikileaks has shown us anything, it's that this isn't happening.

---

quote:

---

The US military knew of the abuses, the documents suggest, but reports were sent up the chain of command marked "no further investigation", our correspondent adds.

Under a "frago" - or fragmentary order, which changes an existing order - discovery by US staff of "Iraqi on Iraqi abuse" required no further investigation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
If you're married to an officer you know their job is tough enough without criticism from the sidelines.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
no_prophet, our guys fight so that you can safely slag them off.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Now, are there any situations where your 'support the troops' stance is more nuanced than either total and whole-hearted commitment, or complete and utter disgust?

I'm hazarding a guess that both no_prophet and me can manage somewhere in between. How about you?

---

It's true - I haven't spent a lot of time communicating a more nuanced stance, but here's a quick version. If "support the troops" means "...whatever the hell they do, and whatever sort of idiotic or corrupt government policies put them in harm's way", then No. If "support the troops" means "take care that they are educated, trained, provided with adequate resources, and thanked for doing difficult jobs on behalf of me and my democratically elected government" then Yes.

And this is :

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
... quashing of dissent...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leaf:
It's true - I haven't spent a lot of time communicating a more nuanced stance, but here's a quick version. If "support the troops" means "...whatever the hell they do, and whatever sort of idiotic or corrupt government policies put them in harm's way", then No. If "support the troops" means "take care that they are educated, trained, provided with adequate resources, and thanked for doing difficult jobs on behalf of me and my democratically elected government" then Yes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leaf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
... quashing of dissent...

---

This is a discussion board. We are having a discussion. I am not quashing your dissent; that would require other actions which I am not willing to take. So the whole self-righteous "Help help I'm being oppressed!" act should be taken and placed somewhere more appropriate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Of course it's about oil. So ? Living in an open society and consuming oil are inextricably linked. Threaten one you threaten the other facet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Support the troops completely, with the exception of individuals who have been proven to have committed war crimes. Those should be punished severely. I wish the Democrat Congress had had the guts to convene a special prosecutor to look into the Bush administration for war crimes to hold politicians accountable. ...

I sincerely don't understand this vitriol against those who serve in the military. Save your anger and bitterness for the politicians who misuse their service. Most service personnel are trying to serve their country honorably. Most have done multiple tours in war zones with little or no recognition and many coming back maimed - either physically or mentally. What I'm seeing is a repeat of the Viet Nam era. ...

I should note I have always been against the war in Iraq and rapidly turning sour on Afghanistan - but I will never blame the troops for what our politicians have done.

---

Bravo!

I was against the erroneous reasons for going into both Vietnam and Iraq but didn't and don't feel the need to make the poor soldiers victims of the anger and scorn which was rightly that of the politicians.

It is a pity that Congress didn't impeach Bush. Our own John Howard comes out as a bloodthirsty lickspittle.
 

---

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Any job which is 'tough' needs outside inspection to prevent abuses. You wouldn't suggest that the civilian police force should be immune from public accountability, would you?

Or are you arguing that the armed forces are a special case?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):

It is a pity that Congress didn't impeach Bush. Our own John Howard comes out as a bloodthirsty lickspittle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):

It is a pity that Congress didn't impeach Bush. Our own John Howard comes out as a bloodthirsty lickspittle.

---

Hey! Don't go leaving our Tony Blair out of this. He played a huge part in getting Gulf II rolling, pointing to the British bases on Cyprus as a potential target for Saddam's WMD's. Where do the crimes of individual soldiers, or even a systemic cover-up of same, stack up against that?

---

Look, I'm so ashamed of our own 'Man of Steel', John Howard (christened as such by Dubya) that I don't want - apart from Bush, who as the truly amoral (to say the least) leader of 'The Coalition of the Willing' was the insane Pied Piper leading us all into Iraq - to point the finger at any other leader. I think you Brits summed Blair up pretty well and he is also someone with a much lessened reputation.

Martin PC, I don't think anyone would disagree with you that Saddam was an evil dictator who ruthlessly suppressed, deprived, terrorised and starved his own people. No one would regret his sordid passing.

It's just I don't think two wrongs make it right. The incredible sufferings of the Iraqi people and the deaths and maiming of coalition troops should, as you point out quite correctly, be slated home to those on top. The poor bastards on the ground on both sides are those who suffer and die.

[ 10. December 2010, 02:31: Message edited by: Sir Pellinore (ret'd) ]
 

---

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I've got a LOT of sympathy for old Tony.

Hussein deliberately killed one million of his people's children during 10 years of sanctions, Satanically signalling 'Look what YOU'RE making me do.'.

Using a false prospectus to take out that piece of filth is STILL better than ANY alternative AND worth all the consequences.

There.

I think I just took back my confession of error in supporting the war against that evil bastard and his sick regime.

I'm sure I'll oscillate away from that again, but I'm glad I said it at this moment. It's been an elephant in my room for years I see.

---

We were Saddam's steadfast allies during much of his reign of terror, so we needn't act morally indignant here. There also was no pressing need to invade Iraq when we did, throwing out U.N. inspectors to do so. Had we finished what we started in Afghanistan, plowing even a fraction of the money we've wasted in Iraq we'd be in a much better state all the way around world wide and probably terrorism wise as well. All we've managed to accomplish is to give Al Queda nice propaganda material and turn a secular dictatorship into an Iran friendly, corrupt Islamic state.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
That was against the even more evil and insane 'theocracy' of Iran. A Soviet front.

Your failed rhetoric against my specific points is noted.

[ 10. December 2010, 07:54: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
Iran a 'Soviet front'?

Possibly aided by them at one stage, just as North Korea and the Islamic Republic are currently in alliance.

Politics makes strange bedfellows.
 

---

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
That was against the even more evil and insane 'theocracy' of Iran. A Soviet front.

Your failed rhetoric against my specific points is noted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Evil and insane theocracy maybe, but when did Iran last invade anywhere? Whether they deserved it or not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
That was against the even more evil and insane 'theocracy' of Iran.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
I think you misunderstand the (sadly shortlived) democratically elected Mossadegh government, Martin PC. It's a pity it was overthrown by the CIA and friends. If it had lasted we probably wouldn't have had the rule of the Ayatollahs aka the Islamic Republic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
I think you misunderstand the (sadly shortlived) democratically elected Mossadegh government, Martin PC. It's a pity it was overthrown by the CIA and friends. If it had lasted we probably wouldn't have had the rule of the Ayatollahs aka the Islamic Republic.

---

Sadly, we still haven't learned our undermining/overthrowing of democratically elected governments because we're playing simulated war games with other countries or we don't like their policies or because of economic reasons and the support of some dictatorships because of the same reasons always comes back to bite us in the behind.

---

Hopefully we in the West are learning not to support toxic undemocratic governments because they are perceived to be on our 'side'.

Also not assisting to overthrow mildly leftist governments for no other reason than they are mildly leftist.

That still does not solve the world's problems, but at least it would be a start.
 

---

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
Perhaps it would help this thought experiment to ask, in what way is it morally better to be a soldier in a national army than in a mercenary company ? What implications does it have for conscience and moral choice ?

The issues about the circumstances of people who do so, the impact on their families, them being real human beings who suffer in combat etc still apply.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
It would have been marvellous if Iran had become another Turkey and I'm HIGHLY suspect of British involvement in ANYTHING, believe it or not (as we created the nightmares of Israel and Kashmir and irresponsible power vacuums everywhere). But there's no way Iran would have become a Finland under Soviet subversion. It would have become Cuba x 100..0. The Soviets would have been on the Straights of Hormuz. Russia was EXTREMELY adept at taming Islam.
 

---

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Uriel:
I havn't followed all of the twists and turns of this debate, but wanted to add a note about supporting UK troops. I live half a mile from the 40 Commando Royal Marines base in Somerset, who have just come back from a 6 month tour of Afghanistan. My children go to a school where one in four kids has a dad in the Marines.

The Marines I know are decent, reliable human beings and during their six month tour of duty were put under immense strain and danger the like of which most of us will ever experience. Fourteen marines died on the tour, and I spent time with one of the widows in the aftermath of her loss. What she has had to go through is absolutely terrible. Utterly terrible. Becoming a widow at 27 for God's sake. And something she will carry for the rest of her life.

---

The marines are human beings - of course they are. They have friends and family - of course they do. They may be fine people - sure they may be.

But then so are those they have killed. All of those they have shot, bombed and otherwise killed are also human beings, have friends and family and may be just as fine people. So we cry and grieve over those we know and ignore those on the other side. And they have travelled to foreign lands with their fine guns and bombs, and they just go along with the plans. So it's all good, grand and lovely. Shall we also pray for those they've killed? Probably not.
 

---

Posted by redderfreak (# 15191) on :
 
In February 2003 I marched through London with a sign saying 'not in my name' with red paint splashed all over it. I was never able to vote for Tony Blair after that.

I feel no more support for 'our' troops than those they are fighting against. They are all soldiers doing their jobs, whichever side they are fighting on. Most of the German soldiers in WW1 and WW2 were well-meaning, ordinary people. They played football with each other between the lines at Christmas in 1914.

Love your enemies.
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
Well, MartinPC, I suspect you and I will continue to disagree on what might have happened if the Mossadegh Government had not been overthrown.
 

---

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
Perhaps it would help this thought experiment to ask, in what way is it morally better to be a soldier in a national army than in a mercenary company ? What implications does it have for conscience and moral choice ?

The issues about the circumstances of people who do so, the impact on their families, them being real human beings who suffer in combat etc still apply.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
The marines are human beings - of course they are. They have friends and family - of course they do. They may be fine people - sure they may be.

But then so are those they have killed. All of those they have shot, bombed and otherwise killed are also human beings, have friends and family and may be just as fine people. So we cry and grieve over those we know and ignore those on the other side. And they have travelled to foreign lands with their fine guns and bombs, and they just go along with the plans. So it's all good, grand and lovely. Shall we also pray for those they've killed? Probably not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Uriel:
My point was that you can both support the marines as human beings while not wanting them to be there. Having concern for them and their families does not commit you to supporting the conflict they are sent into. It all hinges on how you define "support" in the OP.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
I think I can see what you're getting at, Think2.

There would, I think, be some similarity between anyone fighting in a war zone. They are all, after all, combatants.

It is possible to differentiate between soldiers fighting in a national army and private contractors. It seems much easier to bring an Allied soldier to justice than to do so to some of those at the top of Blackwater.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
But to go back to no-prophet's point about the moral responsibility of the actual combatants - rather than their leaders. Traditionally we have taken very different attitudes to the responsibilities of mercenaries and national soldiers. But when they are volunteers, paid by the same governments to do the same things in the same places - often originally trained in national armies - is that difference really there anymore ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
There is something odd in seeing the leaders only as responsible for the damage caused by war. Discussions that see soldiers only as victims, or puppets without moral agency unless a certain geneva convention switch is thrown - miss an aspect of what is happening.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
But to go back to no-prophet's point about the moral responsibility of the actual combatants - rather than their leaders. Traditionally we have taken very different attitudes to the responsibilities of mercenaries and national soldiers. But when they are volunteers, paid by the same governments to do the same things in the same places - often originally trained in national armies - is that difference really there anymore ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leaf:
If a principled vegetarian wished to have no more slaughter of animals for meat, they could: (a) organize, lobby, and make it illegal to slaughter animals for food, and illegal to be a butcher or slaughterhouse employee; (b) run after butchers or slaughterhouse employees in the streets, pointing and screaming, "Butchers! Killers!" and trying to make their lives difficult because of their legal employment.

It's (b) which troubles me. I understand that as a front-line offensive it might be appealing or effective. What troubles me is that it appeals to that dark part of the soul filled with self-righteousness and scape-goating. Attempts to shame individuals doing something legal seem to me to be petty, vindictive, ridiculous, and ineffective.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
In essence, I think part of what no-prophet is getting at; is that wars could not happen if soldiers did not fight them. They are making a choice to be prepared to kill. There is something odd in seeing the leaders only as responsible for the damage caused by war. Discussions that see soldiers only as victims, or puppets without moral agency unless a certain geneva convention switch is thrown - miss an aspect of what is happening.

---

Yes, this is a clearer statement of what I am trying to say. And further, it really bothers me that it has defaulted to 'support the troops'.
 

---

Posted by byrd5d (# 15249) on :
 
perhaps you could blame the soldiers if they were volunteers but the only thing that can absolve you of blame is your vote or your conscience
 

---

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
I see your point, but social disapproval can be a very powerful tool for change. Very few people are going to bring up their child aspiring to be a prostitute, a mercenary, a pawnbroker, a bailiff or a bookie - regardless of legality. Whereas soldiers are held up as heroes, literally, as role models, soldiering as an honorable profession.

---

quote:

---

If you read the accounts of soldiers of their own service, or just think it through, it is clear that soldiers are not pacifists.

---

quote:

---

Looking at a comparison with mercenaries allows us to throw some issues into relief that are obscured by the patriotic narrative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
Further up the thread we have talked about why it is that frontline private infantry tend to come from poor backgrounds - the army as one of the few better paid opportunities. Mercenaries are primarily drawn from people who have previously been national soldiers. Does their moral responsibility change once they join a different organisation ?

...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Agreed. But now they're there ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
I cannot but reemphasise that I think the prime 'moral responsibility' should be slated straight home to the politicians, who do often seem to be acting amorally in their use of troops as mere pawns in a game which seems to be more about the geopolitics of oil than anything else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Agreed. But now they're there ...

---

Well, that line of 'reasoning' could have given us some interesting conversations, couldn't it?

'Hirohito, I'm not sure our troops should have invaded Manchuria' 'Agreed. But now they're there....'
'Benito, I'm not sure our troops should have invaded Abyssinia' 'Agreed. But now they're there....'
'Adolf, I'm not sure our troops should have invaded Poland' 'Agreed. But now they're there...'
'Leonid, I'm not sure our troops should have invaded Czechoslovakia' 'Agreed. But now they're there....'
etc

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Agreed. But now they're there ...

---

Well, that line of 'reasoning' could have given us some interesting conversations, couldn't it?

'Hirohito, I'm not sure our troops should have invaded Manchuria' 'Agreed. But now they're there....'
'Benito, I'm not sure our troops should have invaded Abyssinia' 'Agreed. But now they're there....'
'Adolf, I'm not sure our troops should have invaded Poland' 'Agreed. But now they're there...'
'Leonid, I'm not sure our troops should have invaded Czechoslovakia' 'Agreed. But now they're there....'
etc

---

It took time but they are there no longer. Remember too that in three out of four cases they didn't go peacefully.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Agreed. But now they're there ...

---

Well, that line of 'reasoning' could have given us some interesting conversations, couldn't it?

'Hirohito, I'm not sure our troops should have invaded Manchuria' 'Agreed. But now they're there....'
'Benito, I'm not sure our troops should have invaded Abyssinia' 'Agreed. But now they're there....'
'Adolf, I'm not sure our troops should have invaded Poland' 'Agreed. But now they're there...'
'Leonid, I'm not sure our troops should have invaded Czechoslovakia' 'Agreed. But now they're there....'
etc

---

It took time but they are there no longer. Remember too that in three out of four cases they didn't go peacefully.

---

Quite a narrowly selected list. How about the Dutch in Indonesia and the Americans in the Philippines and the British in India? Genocidal leaders and soldiers in all cases. You can't list just the ones you happen to like and think you've made a point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
I cannot but reemphasise that I think the prime 'moral responsibility' should be slated straight home to the politicians, who do often seem to be acting amorally in their use of troops as mere pawns in a game which seems to be more about the geopolitics of oil than anything else.

---

And it has been happening this way for 10,000 years. Which suggests rather strongly that it doesn't work.

---

Well, people have been talking, at sometimes great personal danger to themselves, truth to power for centuries. It is a never ending struggle.

Re your allusions to the British, Dutch and Americans, I suspect you are taking the thread back historically into colonial times. I think you might have mentioned that clearly.

The word 'genocide' is a very emotive and often misused one. I suspect you were using it, at least in part, for effect. Bad move with an intelligent and blatantly obviously nonwarmongering audience composed of the likes of Sioni, Martin PC, Uriel et sim. A triumph of rhetoric over reason IMO.

There is a case to be made for absolute Christian pacifism, as with the Orthodox martyrs St Boris and St Gleb, who were prepared to stake their lives on it.

I would reject the contention that it is the only valid and moral Christian stance, for a number of reasons.

To someone who does not know you, some of your more recent posts on this thread seem to be in the form of Millenarian preaching. I am rather concerned about the theology you seem to subscribe to.

I can take Think2's Quaker position which she has stated extremely clearly and dispassionately and respect it, without agreeing.

As far as I am aware, these are discussion threads. I am beginning to suspect you are using this one to preach. Obviously any ruling on this would come from the Host and I don't want to step on his or her toes but you are making me distinctly uneasy with what I feel is your agenda.
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
Sorry for double post.

Perhaps I was a trifle hasty in seeing no_prophet involved in some form of Millenarian preaching. If I read him wrong I'm sorry.

However, I do find his method of argumentation a trifle confrontational and am confused as to what he is actually trying to achieve.

Perhaps I should just give it up and totter off wondering.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Exactly which religious, racial or national groups did the Dutch, American or British occupying powers systematically destroy? They were all cruel and destructive at times, but not to anything resembling a genocidal level.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):

To someone who does not know you, some of your more recent posts on this thread seem to be in the form of Millenarian preaching. I am rather concerned about the theology you seem to subscribe to.

I can take Think2's Quaker position which she has stated extremely clearly and dispassionately and respect it, without agreeing.

As far as I am aware, these are discussion threads. I am beginning to suspect you are using this one to preach. Obviously any ruling on this would come from the Host and I don't want to step on his or her toes but you are making me distinctly uneasy with what I feel is your agenda.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Agreed. But now they're there ...

---

Well, that line of 'reasoning' could have given us some interesting conversations, couldn't it?

'Hirohito, I'm not sure our troops should have invaded Manchuria' 'Agreed. But now they're there....'
'Benito, I'm not sure our troops should have invaded Abyssinia' 'Agreed. But now they're there....'
'Adolf, I'm not sure our troops should have invaded Poland' 'Agreed. But now they're there...'
'Leonid, I'm not sure our troops should have invaded Czechoslovakia' 'Agreed. But now they're there....'
etc

---

It took time but they are there no longer. Remember too that in three out of four cases they didn't go peacefully.

---

Quite a narrowly selected list. How about the Dutch in Indonesia and the Americans in the Philippines and the British in India? Genocidal leaders and soldiers in all cases. You can't list just the ones you happen to like and think you've made a point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
Is it not hypocracy to "support the troops" and at the same time to suggest "I'm against the war"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
...If it is preachy...

As for the specifics of the accusation (if that is what it is) that I am preaching, and in essence asking for hosts to respond to something that I may have done wrong, that concerns me. I thought I was discussing. First, I certainly understand the topic may offend some. Second, I don't know your role on the forum re advising posters or the hosts. I'll refrain from further response until this is clarified. I'd rather not be thrown overboard the ship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
the prime 'moral responsibility' should be slated straight home to the politicians, who do often seem to be acting amorally in their use of troops as mere pawns in a game which seems to be more about the geopolitics of oil than anything else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Killing is not the primary purpose but may result as part of this defence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
There's nothing wrong with you as a person and I neither want nor think you will be kicked off.

I think you need to work on your delivery. It was very hard at times understanding what you said. Or at least I found it so.

I find Christmas a rather tiring and emotional time, so, with apologies if I have got anyone's nose out of joint on this thread, I might wish you all the best and sit the rest of this one out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
... but you're being naive in the extreme if you think the point of all that marching, running in full kit, assault courses, section attacks, live firing exercises etc is not to make the individual soldier prepared to kill when ordered.

The whole idea being, not to die for your country but to make the other guy die for his.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
Is it not hypocracy to "support the troops" and at the same time to suggest "I'm against the war"?

---

No, because it's not hypocrisy in my religion to support some of the most disadvantaged and unfortunate people in society when they try to get out of a hellhole and better themselves.

Maybe you missed the documentary in which Michael Moore shows scenes of the seemingly God-forsaken Michigan neighborhoods such as the one in which he had grown up. It is in such places that military recruiters set up shop and sometimes apply considerable pressure to the many kids desperate for employment. Those who enlist are probably making a wise decision, but I would think that it requires tremendous courage. They know it will totally uproot them and involve hardship. They will have a lot to learn and to unlearn in a short time. They will have to submit to authority and follow orders as they have never done before in their lives. They will enter as punks hanging out on street corners for want of anything better to do with their lives; and they will leave as Veterans, not only complete many skills and discplines already acquired courtesy of Uncle Sam, but a good crack at going on to college. In their place, even a gay Aspie like me, who can break out in a sweat even looking at a gun, would probably be well advised to accept, when the likeliest alternatives in sight are flipping hamburgers or selling drugs. And if there is a little sense of good citizenship and love of country in their motivations as well, so much the better-- especially admirable from those for whom their country has thus far done so little to deserve their loyalty. The experience will leave many of them with physical and psychological wounds. It's no time for a self-appointed finger-wagger to turn his back on them. It seems to me that by and large these grunts and ex-grunts are some of the finest people in the country. I can hardly imagine what they've gone through for us, and I'll "support" them without hesitation.

It was fashionable in the early 1970s almost literally to spit on Vietnam war veterans. They were despised, it seems, by all for various reasons: by some for fighting the war, by others for losing it. It was a mistake that I certainly wouldn't want to encourage repeating, especially out of a feelgood, false sense of empathy.

Please, save your wrath for the individuals and institutions that are putting young people in this situation in the first place.

---

This deserves a
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
... but you're being naive in the extreme if you think the point of all that marching, running in full kit, assault courses, section attacks, live firing exercises etc is not to make the individual soldier prepared to kill when ordered.

The whole idea being, not to die for your country but to make the other guy die for his.

---

A bit of a broken record this. I don't agree.

But I think it's time to take a sanity break for Christmas. No offence, but I've been here 100 times.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
Is it not hypocracy to "support the troops" and at the same time to suggest "I'm against the war"?

---

No, because it's not hypocrisy in my religion to support some of the most disadvantaged and unfortunate people in society when they try to get out of a hellhole and better themselves.

Maybe you missed the documentary in which Michael Moore shows scenes of the seemingly God-forsaken Michigan neighborhoods such as the one in which he had grown up. It is in such places that military recruiters set up shop and sometimes apply considerable pressure to the many kids desperate for employment. Those who enlist are probably making a wise decision, but I would think that it requires tremendous courage. They know it will totally uproot them and involve hardship. They will have a lot to learn and to unlearn in a short time. They will have to submit to authority and follow orders as they have never done before in their lives. They will enter as punks hanging out on street corners for want of anything better to do with their lives; and they will leave as Veterans, not only complete many skills and discplines already acquired courtesy of Uncle Sam, but a good crack at going on to college. In their place, even a gay Aspie like me, who can break out in a sweat even looking at a gun, would probably be well advised to accept, when the likeliest alternatives in sight are flipping hamburgers or selling drugs. And if there is a little sense of good citizenship and love of country in their motivations as well, so much the better-- especially admirable from those for whom their country has thus far done so little to deserve their loyalty. The experience will leave many of them with physical and psychological wounds. It's no time for a self-appointed finger-wagger to turn his back on them. It seems to me that by and large these grunts and ex-grunts are some of the finest people in the country. I can hardly imagine what they've gone through for us, and I'll "support" them without hesitation.

It was fashionable in the early 1970s almost literally to spit on Vietnam war veterans. They were despised, it seems, by all for various reasons: by some for fighting the war, by others for losing it. It was a mistake that I certainly wouldn't want to encourage repeating, especially out of a feelgood, false sense of empathy.

Please, save your wrath for the individuals and institutions that are putting young people in this situation in the first place.

---

This deserves a

---

Second on the

 

---

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :
 
War is a make work project for a troubled economy and that deserves accolades? Great.
 

---

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
War is a make work project for a troubled economy and that deserves accolades? Great.

---

And the entire post just sailed right past you.

Really, those who join the military do so for primarily 2 reasons: they truly want to defend the country - please remember we were attacked on U.S. soil on 9/11 and that is what prompted the war in Afghanistan. While intelligence was twisted/fabricated to get us into Iraq, those who went believed they were defending our country against a threat. Those that are there now are in training capacity, though there are attempts by insurgents and Al Quida operatives to kill them along with Iraqi police and military. The 2nd reason many join the military is that for many, there are no jobs here. The military provides them with a paycheck to support their families and they have real options for education and employment when they get out.

Without question our political leaders f'd up both wars - but the blame lies with the leaders NOT the soldier. As to laying their guns down now - only a fool would do that in either Iraq or Afghanistan where people are actively trying to kill them. As to our leaving either country, the reality is that we need to find exit strategies that do not harm either of those countries and do not endanger our countries.

Supporting the troops does not equal supporting specific wars. I'm channeling my efforts on where it will do the most good - with political leaders. That's what ended the Viet Nam war.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
The problem with all the recent 's is that you've pretty much cast the recruiting sergeants as little better than pimps and pushers, preying on the vulnerable and desperate.

That's not a good thing.
 

---

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The problem with all the recent 's is that you've pretty much cast the recruiting sergeants as little better than pimps and pushers, preying on the vulnerable and desperate.

That's not a good thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
... but you're being naive in the extreme if you think the point of all that marching, running in full kit, assault courses, section attacks, live firing exercises etc is not to make the individual soldier prepared to kill when ordered.

The whole idea being, not to die for your country but to make the other guy die for his.

---

A bit of a broken record this. I don't agree.

But I think it's time to take a sanity break for Christmas. No offence, but I've been here 100 times.

---

I accept the fact you don't agree. You're still wrong, and because of that, you'll continue to have a mistaken impression of what an army's supposed to be there for.

---

In your opinion.

There seems to be a simplistic assumption behind your posts that an overintellectualized reductio ad absurdum from the cumfort of a philosopher's armchair can be applied across the board to the very complex conditions which humanity now faces.

Were life that simple.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
There seems to be a simplistic assumption behind your posts that an overintellectualized reductio ad absurdum from the cumfort of a philosopher's armchair can be applied across the board to the very complex conditions which humanity now faces.

Were life that simple.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Actually, the armed forces are trained to do a number of things. Putting it down to 'killing' is simplistic.

---

quote:

---

If you, or anyone else, decides they can never, ever, under any circumstances, contemplate killing, or wants to, out of misplaced senses of moral outrage and impotence because the major culprits are untouchable, slate home some of the guilt to the poor pawns on the ground, go ahead.

---

quote:

---

It is also strikes me as ironic that your moral thunder stick seems pointed at the troops of the US, UK, Australia and other countries whereas there is no mention of really dangerous rogue states such as North Korea, Iran, Myanamar or organisations such as Hezbollah, which seem to me far more dangerous and amoral.

---

quote:

---

This ties in with your simplistic, off-the-shelf 'history' lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq.

People like you were talking this sort of dangerous appeasement balderdash during WWII. Taken to its logical conclusion the consequences would really be catastrophic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I live in the UK. I'm not being asked to 'support' Hezbollah or the Revolutionary Guard. I'm being asked to support the British army, navy (what's left of it) and airforce. Do I support Hezbollah? No. Do the people of southern Lebanon support Hezbollah? You haven't even spotted the irony in your own question, let alone failed to point it out in mine.

The Hezbollah fighters appear to enjoy popular support from their friends and families - how is this different from you telling me I have to support my national armed forces. Apart from the notion you find them 'dangerous and amoral', whereas our men and women aren't...

quote:

---

This ties in with your simplistic, off-the-shelf 'history' lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq.

People like you were talking this sort of dangerous appeasement balderdash during WWII. Taken to its logical conclusion the consequences would really be catastrophic.

---

You're projecting. As has been frequently demonstrated on this thread, to many posters' minds either I'm full-square behind the armed forces, or a nasty fifth columnist determined to undermine western democracy. Nuance much?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm not supporting the armed forces, which I see as agencies of the nation state. I'm supporting the men and women serving in them (or who have served in them). They, not the army, navy and air force, nor the wars they fight nor (especially) those who put them in the positions they find themselves in, deserve our support.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So you think pacifism is morally wrong? UnChristian perhaps? Interesting.

---

quote:

---

With the exception of Action, the Journal of the British Union of Fascists, it is hard to think of another British newspaper which was so consistent an apologist for nazi Germany as Peace News, the PPU's [Peace Pledge Union's] official mouthpiece.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm not supporting the armed forces, which I see as agencies of the nation state. I'm supporting the men and women serving in them (or who have served in them). They, not the army, navy and air force, nor the wars they fight nor (especially) those who put them in the positions they find themselves in, deserve our support.

---

And we come back full circle. How much responsibility do those individual men and women have for the inevitable killing of civilians and their own colleagues in 'friendly fire' incidents, or for the mere fact of just being in a foreign country unasked?

I'm not suggesting (at least I don't think I have) that support is not offered - but that it is a critical, thoughtful support. It seems to me that some here want to treat soldiers as either unthinking drones or as children, devoid of all responsibility for their actions. Or even as victims of their circumstances. They might be all three, but that's as far from the whole truth as proposing that everyone who joins up is a sociopath.

---

quote:

---

Buffy Saint Marie said (as quoted in wikipedia)
I wrote "Universal Soldier" in the basement of The Purple Onion coffee house in Toronto in the early sixties. It’s about individual responsibility for war and how the old feudal thinking kills us all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
We're discussing the moral responsibility for war and acts within war, and the disconnect between them. Your personal response is similar to what is heard from many soldiers. This is not about you personally.

quote:

---

Buffy Saint Marie said (as quoted in wikipedia)
I wrote "Universal Soldier" in the basement of The Purple Onion coffee house in Toronto in the early sixties. It’s about individual responsibility for war and how the old feudal thinking kills us all.

---

---

Hold on, I can see that your OP wasn't directed at sebby, but it was directed, as Buffy Saint Marie said, against every individual soldier.

Maybe it's the 'old feudal thinking', ie society itself, that needs to be looked at critically, not the individuals?
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Sebby
 

---

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
We're discussing the moral responsibility for war and acts within war, and the disconnect between them. Your personal response is similar to what is heard from many soldiers. This is not about you personally.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:The bottom line is someone has to do it.

---

quote:

---

I have been a British army officer who has served with the infantry on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

All countries have and need armies, no matter how unfortunate this fact may be. I suspect it will be true to the end of the human race. Soldiers go where the politicians send them.

---

quote:

---

To blame soldiers is like blaming the police for being police.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:The bottom line is someone has to do it.

---

There are those of us who do not accept this to be true. If you don't, then it changes the basis of the whole argument. It is literally true, that if no one was prepared to be a soldier it would not be possible to fight a war. More practically, it has long been argued that conducting international affairs differently would reduce or remove the need for a standing army.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I have been a British army officer who has served with the infantry on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

All countries have and need armies, no matter how unfortunate this fact may be. I suspect it will be true to the end of the human race. Soldiers go where the politicians send them.

---

As I said above, we don't all believe in the need for armies. One of the issues I have with the concept of being a soldier, is precisely that of being prepared to go wherever you are sent. What would you do if we elected an aggressive expansionist government ? At what point do you walk away ?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

To blame soldiers is like blaming the police for being police.

---

People who disagree with policing, such as anarchists, do.

---

quote:

---

Let me put it another way, with all due respect, do you think the situation in Afghanistan is better for ordinary Afghans than before the invasion ?

---

quote:

---

... instead we had given them large amounts of economic aid - invested the amount of money we'd spent on the war. What do you think Afghanistan would be like now ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Jeepers! So much with which to disagree in one post! Where to start?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:

quote:

---

*snip* More practically, it has long been argued that conducting international affairs differently would reduce or remove the need for a standing army.

---

Do you mean like in the 1930s?

---

OK I invoke Godwin's law - you officially lose the argument.

More seriously, the politics of the 1930s is not the only possible political course other than a war.

quote:

---

And what if someone else elects an aggressive, expansionist, government? At what point do you stop lying down and letting them walk all over you?

---

Well, for starters it helps if you don't sell them weapons. Which appears to have been our policy over the majority of the 20th century. And you know there is a relationship between the Mujahadeen (to whom we contributed funds and arms) and the Taliban don't you ?

quote:

---

quote:

---

[quote]
To blame soldiers is like blaming the police for being police.

---

People who disagree with policing, such as anarchists, do.

---

An extreme minority opinion, it has to be said

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Let me put it another way, with all due respect, do you think the situation in Afghanistan is better for ordinary Afghans than before the invasion ?

---

I suppose the answer will differ depending on whether you're male or female.

---

quote:

---

Pretty good if you're a member of the Taliban, middling to shite if you're not, and utterly shite if you're a woman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
So what would you have done against Hitler in the 1930s to stop him invading other countries and exterminating the Jews and others? (That's not violating Godwins' Law, BTW, which is comparing your opponent to the Nazis.) Or, bringing it up to date, what would you do about the Taliban, not just in Afghanistan but also busily invading Pakistan?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Agreed; I won't be able to do anything realistically until after lunch now, so feel free in the meantime if you have time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
So what would you have done against Hitler in the 1930s to stop him invading other countries and exterminating the Jews and others? (That's not violating Godwins' Law, BTW, which is comparing your opponent to the Nazis.) Or, bringing it up to date, what would you do about the Taliban, not just in Afghanistan but also busily invading Pakistan?

---

And just to preempt a possible answer which we've heard before, to say that if people only followed pacifist principles that state of affairs would never have happened is a cop out. The question is what you would do in the real world, and an alternative history is not the real world.

I've already posted my own view on the morality of pacifism in WW2.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Provided an action is within the bounds of the Geneva Conventions et al, soldiers are bound to obey the orders of their superiors - including their political leaders.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Agreed; I won't be able to do anything realistically until after lunch now, so feel free in the meantime if you have time.

---

Now started.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Like I feel about Doc Tor, I think you oversimplify political things, such as the rise of the Taliban.

There are no prizes for realizing that world politics is conducted along the lines recommended by Macchiavelli in Il Principe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:
'A centurion, a sort of cross between RSM and second lieutenant...'

I love that. What a frightening thought! I have always regarded Pontius Pilate as a cross between an RSM and a late entry officer, like a Quarter Master.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
I suspect, no_prophet, that, as an intelligent young person, possibly a student, much of your material is the result of discussion in a tertiary level Christian interest group.

That's not to put you down, merely to clarify my own thinking.

---

quote:

---

Like I feel about Doc Tor, I think you oversimplify political things, such as the rise of the Taliban.

---

quote:

---

There are no prizes for realizing that world politics is conducted along the lines recommended by Macchiavelli in Il Principe.

---

quote:

---

I am intrigued by incidents in the New Testament such as the healing of the centurion's servant.

A centurion, a sort of cross between RSM and second lieutenant, would be a hardened military man with blood on his hands. Yet Jesus did not give him a piece of his mind about this nor did he try and make him feel guilty in any way. He praised the man's faith and cured the servant.

---

quote:

---

I wonder why people like you are trying to get troops (as far as I am aware there are none on this thread) feel some sort of guilt for what they may have done in war?

---

quote:

---

If there are indeed no troops on the thread I would say your (possibly subconscious) psychological reasons for continuing to post the way you do would be more informative than what you say.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

I take the point about centurions, I see them as sergeant-majors, but more major than sergeant!

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0