Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink
ravages of war
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by peepys (U2381451) on Tuesday, 3rd January 2006
i was sorry to read of the distress experienced by families whose relatives have been to war.
my question to all who sign up for war: is how can u do this thing voluntarily.
historically, britain and its people were at war for reasons of territory, wealth generation, n any number of other reasons. the MOD does offer young people exciting opportunities career wise, but this is the only thing exciting. when u sign up to join the army, navy or airforce, it is with the clear notion that u will b trained to kill and at some time or other will b called upon to kill. for those trained to kill by governments makes it no more or less immoral. in this day and age, we do not need to go to war, but the fruits of war seem to be sufficient to encourage people to sign up.
i would like to question those who do go to war, there have been dissenters to war but as long as people sign up to kill, we will have casualties of war. it is for parents and the children of future and even todays generation to ask ourselves, whether it is moral to go to war.
when my son, who is now 19 asked me about how i felt, i was in a position to explain to him that with my pacifist views, i would have been very unhappy that someone i loved n had brought into the world, would be involved in war, killing, n conquering. the irony of soldiers who are involved with peacekeeping, do/will at some time or other be asked to kill.
war is savage, cruel and the people involved in it for whatever reason, at some point will reap what they sow. the taking of life; imposing restraints on civilians is all very much a part of military institutions, i am not surprised that people do occasionally take their lives after the horrors of being involved in war.
world war one and two both enabled the countries involved to test the strength of their weapons. even countries where apartheid (south africa), countries where foreign nationals ruled (india) sent troops to fight is these wars. there are wars because there is also the spoils of war.
my advise to anyone thinking of joining the instutions of war - think again. -
Message 2
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 3rd January 2006
Interesting post Peepys,
but far too idealistic. There is a major flaw in your argument, and that flaw is the fact that it is human nature to want to impose your rules (not yours personally) on others, against their will, and so long as people wish to impose their will on others, people will need to defend themselves, with as much force as is required.
However rose-tinted your perceptions of the world are, there are those in the world who despise our way of life, whether it be through envy, through religious indoctrination or just blind intolerance and hate. There are people who hate us, and all we stand for. There are people who believe that we should not even be free to have this conversation, and these people cannot be dissuaded through words, through diplomacy, through negotiation. How do you negotiate with someone for example who believes that God wants him to blow up civilians on their way to work for his glory (and kill himself in the process)? How do you? If we had no armed forces, no men with guns and tanks and bombs, then who would defend us?
Speaking as one with first hand experience of war(s), I know all too well how horrific, wasteful and evil war is, and you will find that most ex-soldiers (and many serving ones) and very anti war. The only times I have used force have been when either under attack myself personally, or in defence of civilians who were incapable of defending themselves. I don't regret a single thing, because no matter how abhorrent it was to me to have to act in this way, I know for a fact that there are many many innocent people alive today, and there are some murdering scumbags who thought it "fun" to shoot at women and children who are not alive today because I did what this country's armed forces trained me to do. Does that give me nightmares? Yes. Do it regret it? Sometimes. Would I do the same again? Absolutely, without question. Do I feel guilt? NO.
War is an unspeakable horror, and something which hopefully we can, given time, rid ourselves of. Personally, I think we will not get there, because greed, hate, ambition and the need to control and sujugate are part of human nature, and so we will always have to defend ourselves, and our way of life by deadly force. If we do not, then we will be eventually crushed by those who will use deadly force.
I do respect your views, but sadly, they are idealistic and pie in the sky. "Let's all be nice to each other" doesn't work with everyone, and to think that everyone can be negotiated with is just naive.
Best wishes,
DL -
Message 3
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 3rd January 2006
Oh dear,
just read that through and I sound like Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men" when he goes off on his "men on walls, with guns..." rant!
Oops. -
Message 4
Posted by peepys (U2381451) on Tuesday, 3rd January 2006
thanx DL for yr response.
i did not want to shoot my mouth off again, causing more pain to those who already are in pain.
in britain today, young men and women have the option of joining the army, navy or the airforces. national conscription was compulsory and remains compulsory in some countries.
britain was a sanctuary for some families when the white population were forced to go to war - those very same white men were forced to perform some very hateful actions which they did not wish to but were forced to.
one such person that i knew, was forced to come to the decision to do something which would make him ineligible to be in the army - he held a gun at his commanding officer's head - he was subsequently held in the psychiatric unit for nearly 6 months; apparently given drugs etc. to make him more malleable; and eventually given a dishonourable discharge.
i find the whole dog eat dog world very painful to live in and hate it when i hear that armies are defending my rights. atrocities are being committed by individuals within this organisation.
i am sure the world was no better in the past, n most will say that we do have better standards of living, but it is usually at some other countries expense.
war is immoral n those who participate pay: one way or the other; in terms of the pain they feel when they r in a vulnerable position with no-one to help them. -
Message 5
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Tuesday, 3rd January 2006
Oh dear,
just read that through and I sound like Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men" when he goes off on his "men on walls, with guns..." rant!
Oops.
Μύ
Hello again DL: I agree about who you sounded like. The problem is that your post has a lot of truth in it. This isn't even close to a perfect world. As long as the west is totally dependent on oil for their economies to survive, we will have war.
I also heard a person make this analogy. Suppose you were on a football team. You practiced every day for several years but never got a chance to play a game against another team, how long would you stay on the team. IMO no nation would have a military very long if they never gave their soldiers a chance to "PROVE" themselves. (I also find it rather humurous to read how different people feel about other nations militaries)
I am now going off in FAR left field and you have every right to call me to task for the next statments. IMO nature lets a young girl know in no uncertain terms that her body has matured. In fact it can be scary when it first happens. There is no such a thing for a young man. Thus societies usually had some challenges for a young man to accomplish before he was considered a "MAN." Before he accomplished them he was prohibited from reproducing, taking a wife, taking part in the "Adult male" events, ect. Now we have stopped most of those trials. But the desire to "Prove" their manhood still exists. So some young men do that by joining the military, killing those "Foreigners."
Finally; I don't know any other vocation that will allow a young man and some of his friends to enter a village, kill everyone they want. Rape and kill anyone else they want. Take all the spoils they can carry. Go home, have multiple decorations presented to them, be considered heroes, and have national holidays named for them. -
Message 6
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 4th January 2006
Hi John,
Hope you are well. I think everyone has their own reasons for deciding to join the military. Mine were pretty simple, a combination of economic recession (no jobs for a teenager worth getting out of bed for), serious boredom and probably a few too many war movies.
However, I must add that when I did join, there weren't any wars really going on that the British Army were involved in, in fact I thought that our last major engagement was in 1982 with the Falklands (if you discount Northern Ireland), so I thought the world was fairly peaceful. This was 1988, and things changed rapidly after then, so two years later when I found myself sat in the middle of the desert watching MLRS being fired off in the distance it was a bit of a shock!
Whether I subconsciously thought of it as some kind of "rite of passage", well I don't honestly know. I don't honestly think I had anything to prove to myself although after making the decision, that changed rapidly, since there was no way I was going to drop out before completing basic! That would have been too humiliating, to have to go home and face everyone, having FAILED! However, that motivation came after joining, not before.
It is, as you said far from a perfect world, and while not wanting to sound like Alan
, there is a lot of evil out there, and the only way to control it is by force. We will never be a demilitarised world, however utopian this may appear, since if we all disarmed, you can guarantee that some scumbag would hide a few guns and take advantage of the weakness of his neighbouring nations. Simply look at the comments of the President of Iran for an example. Mr Mad-head-jihad or whatever his name is spouts vitriolic prose regularly, calls the most powerful nation on the planet "Satan", calls for another nation Israel to be "wiped off the map" in the name of some twisteed version of his religion, so sorry to Peepys, but as long as there are people like this in the world, we need armed forces, since the alternative is unthinkable. The only reason this idiot doesn't order direct military action against Israel or any other nation that he doesn't like is that if he did attack, his 30 years out of date military would be destroyed. There is nothing else stopping him, certainly not reasonable thought anyway! So, he simply incites more idiots to strap on some Semtex and go blow up a few more innocent civilians, since that is the only way that cowards can make war. God help us if they gain nuclear weapons.
Finally, your last paragraph John, very worrying. I guess there is a positive to be taken from this, since our wars have been very different ones (I guess that you were referring to Vietnam) in the terms of "Good guys and Bad guys", and no armed forces of either of our countries would consider this an acceptable way for our soldiers to behave. Well, the majority of them anyway, there are always a few psychotic idiots attracted to the army, although the selection process does tend to weed them out.
Vietnam was a particularly horrific war, and could almost be said to be fought purely for a political theory (Stupid domino theory-utter rubbish!), and wars fought over ideology are by their nature even more horrific than usual.
Cheers
DL -
Message 7
Posted by peepys (U2381451) on Wednesday, 4th January 2006
i am a woman and therefore my view of war is only from reading about it, seeing it being glorified in the news, documentaries, and films. war is very profitable for the few while leaving the majority with the scars which will determine how they respond to hostility; it is clear to me that most men who kill, this includes soldiers both legitimate or not, do this from having lives which are barren of love. how can anyone who genuinely cares about the human race create the havoc and carnage that is the result of war. i believe that these minds have to be disturbed/psychologically impaired to accept orders to kill so readily; and governments readily use this when recruiting soldiers - appealing to the machismo which is mostly posturing from most males.
i do not have an idealistic view of human beings, but it has always been my opinion that we can achieve a lot more good in the world if we can co-operate with each other, rather than constantly compete with each other; seeking to out do each other.
it has to be said that maggie thatch certainly, like bodicea before her, made sure that she appeared to be as bad as the baddest guys - hence the Falklands.
i believe that once a person has killed, they have lost their own value and worth. killing, whether sanctioned or not, is something promoted by governments under the guise of nationalism; excuses of self defence. we may con ourselves that we are an enlightened nation, but the savages certainly are having their day, ruling with weapons. how is this all going to end, is my concern. i imagined that there would be peace during my life time, but that dream will remain that, cos there will always be people, both men and women who actually think it is ok to enlist with the armed forces cos they are fighting for their country - that is the biggest load of b***s***, but it still seems to win 'em over every time.
i believe that the majority of those who seek to find fulfilment (whether career orientated or just the thrill of the kill)within these organisations deserve to die, and a slow and painful death is not bad enough for them.
AND THE SADDEST BIT IS THAT WOMAN IN THEIR QUEST FOR EQUALITY SEEM TO THINK A CAREER IN THE ARMED FORCES IS SOMETHING TO BE PROUD OF!! -
Message 8
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 4th January 2006
Ok Peepys,
Who are you to pass judgement on me? You don't even know me!!!
There are many other examples throughout recent history I could describe to you on how you OWE your freedom to these "disturbed/psychologically impaired" people, but to be quite honest with you, I can't be bothered to go into detail in a conversation with someone who believes the following-
"i believe that the majority of those who seek to find fulfilment (whether career orientated or just the thrill of the kill)within these organisations deserve to die, and a slow and painful death is not bad enough for them."
So much for your pacifist beliefs. If you re-read my earlier post, I stated that IMO there will always be a need for military forces in the world because there are individuals who wish to force their beliefs and will on others, against the will of those others. Your comment there proves my point totally. You have stated that you believe that those who wish to defend their way of life, their families and their freedom with force should die a slow and painful death. That is basically wanting to force pacifism onto people UNDER PAIN OF DEATH. What does that make you?
A little personal history. Both myself and John (jesw1962) are ex-servicemen, with combat experience. In John's case he served in Vietnam (he is an American), in my case the first Gulf War, two tours of duty in Bosnia (both UN and NATO), UN service in Cyprus and several visits to Northern Ireland. Yet you seem to feel suitably qualified on this highly emotive subject to pass judgement on us in your above comment. Nothing quite like having a "holier than thou" attitude is there.
You state that "it is clear to me that most men who kill, this includes soldiers both legitimate or not, do this from having lives which are barren of love. how can anyone who genuinely cares about the human race create the havoc and carnage that is the result of war. i believe that these minds have to be disturbed/psychologically impaired to accept orders to kill so readily;"
Really? You feel quite confident in your beliefs (which I might add you would be forbidden to have had other people not taken up arms to defend the country you live in)in fact so much so that you can pass judgement on people so freely. I'm sorry, but I find your self-righteous judgemental attitude both offensive and totally flawed. You clearly have no experience of the subject or the people you are happily passing judgement on, and should be ashamed of yourself.
I was clearly wrong in stating that I thought you were being idealistic, your issue is clearly much more unusual than that. All I can say is that you should be damned grateful that you aren't speaking in German now, rather than English since you clearly would be if those "disturbed" individuals who defended this country in the past had been of your opinion.
Although maybe with your comments on "Slow and painful death" (some pacifist!) you may have fitted in quite well with the regime Hitler and Co had planned for Britain.
DL
-
Message 9
Posted by peepys (U2381451) on Wednesday, 4th January 2006
thanx, once again, for yr response.
i am not ashamed of holding the views i do.
killing is just that, no matter what spin u or politicians like to give it.
like i said, in my original discussion, my conversation with my son was that i would be very unhappy to think that all the love and nurturing i had given him was going to subverted by men in uniforms who sanctioned killing. i would not have stopped loving my son, but i would have had to look at ways of continuing my relationship with him.
the hitlers of this world are able to continue with damaging behaviour because someone out there is happy to defend their actions; or to make excuses for them.
how is going to war which has been sanctioned by governments any more legitimate than 'terrorist' attacks. -
Message 10
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 4th January 2006
You wrote
"how is going to war which has been sanctioned by governments any more legitimate than 'terrorist' attacks. "
Well now, let me see...
1990 Kuwait invaded by Iraq.
Britain was one of those nations who responded to the UN's mandate and kicked them back out.
London 7th July 2005. Suicide bombers blow up people on their way to work.
What is the difference when it comes to legitimacy? Now let me see...
Honestly, if you cannot see the ethical and moral differences between these two actions then there really is something wrong with your perception of the world we live in.
The first one- an act to free a country from foreign occupation (plus the country happened to be a major oil producer or maybe the reaction wouldn't have been so fast).
The second one- murder.
The two cannot be compared, unless you believe that terrorism is the same an military action by a democratic country which it truly is not.
Another one.
The NATO invasion of Kosovo to stop Serbian genocide against the majority Albanian population. Something we should have done in 1992 to stop the crimes taking place in Bosnia.
September 11 2001. 3000 people killed in the Twin Towers and Pentagon by terrorists killing in the name of their religion.
The first- a legitimate act to stop crimes against humanity.
The second- murder.
Compare those two. Are they the same?
You seem to say that they are. If you really believe that these actions are equally legitimate then that is one really warped perception of right and wrong you have.
This is a nasty world we live in, and as I said earlier, there are times when the only way to stop people from doing evil to others is by use of deadly force. If someone shoots dead an unarmed civilian who is out getting food for their family, that is murder. If a soldier in a peacekeeping force shoots dead the drunken militia thug who is firing an AK47 at unarmed civilians out getting food for their family, that is defending the civilian, and the soldier has done what they came to do, saved lives. What do you expect someone to do in such a situation? Ask them nicely to stop killing those people then make enquiries as to why they are so disaffected that they feel the need to slaughter the innocent???? Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth....
You have no concept of what goes on in the world, and while you are free to choose your own opinion, you have no moral right to judge those who risk their life to defend the country you live in. You started off saying that war is an evil thing. I agree utterly. Then you move to say that those who fight for YOUR freedom deserve a painful death? How dare you? Like you I have a son. I hope he never has to experience the things I have in my life, and I hope he doesn't join any part of the military. It is however, his choice, and whatever he does with his life (so long as it is not criminal) I will support him, and nothing he chooses to do will make me "look at ways of continuing my relationship" with him. He is my son, end of discussion. Still, I suppose your comment on that shows that you are sincere in your willingness to pass judgement, as you would obviously consider your son on a par with bin Laden and co if he joined up. -
Message 11
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Wednesday, 4th January 2006
Peepys,
I feel DL is quite able to handle this one, but let me ask you is it safe where you live? Is mindless violence an everyday occurence? Do marauding armies sweep by your house on regular patrols, indiscriminating killing any seen to move?
Do you think these things are abscent from your corner of the world merely because everyone was raised right and loves life, or because their is a military shadow that benignly and benivolently shields your paradise from the potential ravages of a violent world?
That is one of the core tenets of the contract that you have with your government, be you a Lockean liberal or Hobbesian authortarian, that they will provide you with the peace and shelter from violence that will allow to raise your son in comfort and love. Having had many discussions with ex-servicemen on these boards I think it is vile and ungrateful for you to equate them with 'hitlers', for they have protected you, even if you disagree with some of the decisions that your elected representatives made in their application within that contract.
The soldier in a free democracy is not a mindless automaton, but generally an average joe-soap, educated to the same level as you or I, who quite comes from a socially disadvantaged background. As DL has poignantly illustrated on another thread they are not unaffected by their experiences, and often need our help to reintegrate themselves within our societies. And not because they have been 'subverted by men in uniforms who sanction killing', but because in the name of your contiued safety and liberty they have gone places and seen things that our safe and cultural has not been able to prepare them for. They have been witness to the viler and more debase instincts of humanity, and quite often are charging somehow trying to stop it manifesting itself further.
I don't know which ivory cloister you have raised your son in, but the world beyond its precint is violent and dangerous and nasty and we all need to know someone stands betwenn it and us ( not least those that would like to take away the peace and security we enjoy).
Elistan -
Message 12
Posted by peepys (U2381451) on Wednesday, 4th January 2006
dear DL
what is yr take on the conflict in northern ireland - the men that were historically referred to as terrorists, are now in legitimate jobs in government.
for me, however judgemental this makes me, this is exactly what i am trying to argue - u cannot legitimise war on the grounds that if we did not take up arms to defend our rights, freedom etc we would not be able to live in a free society. as long as this continues and is acceptable, we will have war. we may imagine we live in a free society, but we are paying heavily for it in having our way of life questioned in ways that we are not used to. suicide bombers do not believe they have a voice, so they use unacceptable methods to bring the message home - that does not legitimise their actions. i resent any of my meagre taxes being used to send men/women to war.
i choose to work in a hospital and am surrounded by the caring profession whose job it is to save lives; not take them.
my relationship with my son is strong enough to cope with most of what life throws at us; however, taking up arms would have meant a change in how i perceived him - anyone taking a life, however justified, is not something i could live with. i am uncomfortable with the idea that it is ok and acceptable to kill. there-in lies my problem. if we can educate enough men/women
/children to value life, we stand a better chance of changing arttitudes. to continue to believe that we need to go to war for oil, food etc is why we will continue to have war. -
Message 13
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 4th January 2006
Elistan,
Many thanks for your words. As eloquent as ever.
best wishes,
DL -
Message 14
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Wednesday, 4th January 2006
peepys: I support your right to believe as you do. I also agree that agressive war is wrong under all conditions. I absolutely condem the principle of "Preemptive War." As I understand that, if the U.K. could ever possibly develop a weapon that could endanger the U.S. then we (U.S.) should invade the U.K. now.
Additionally, any invading army becomes cruel and opressive very quickly. Your SAS will brag about all the people they have killed with their bare hands. But here is the problem. If you were walking down the street and a person attacked you, do you have the right to defend yourself? And if I were on the same street, is it correct for me to run to assist you? If so, then is it OK for nations to defend themselves and for other nations to assist in that defense?
If you ever get a chance to read the U.N. Charter, please do. It is, IMO, one of the best documents ever struck by the hand of man. IMO the only way war can be justified today is if the nation that is being threatened/invaded, while they are defending themselves, should go to the U.N., explain the situation. Then the U.N. should authorize massive retaliation against the invador.
Finally, death is as normal as birth. DL is a person I respect very much. But with respect I must say that if you see enough of your friends slaughtered, then you are told to "take" a village. Also, that you are told that village is a strong supporter of the enemy, then you feel justified in doing anything to the inhabitants of it. That includes rape, murder, and anything else you can think of. It is a horribly tragic but true statement that "Killing" is the most enjoyement a person can have. It makes sex look like nothing. Remember, the British took Bengali prisoners during WWII who fought for Japan and killed them. So don't ever expect combat soldiers in a prolonged and bloody war to act civilized. -
Message 15
Posted by peepys (U2381451) on Wednesday, 4th January 2006
thanx elistan for yr thoughtful response altho u maybe mistaken in thinking that i would in any event discuss mr hitler in glowing terms.
he was, and like many leaders in our modern world, quite disturbed as a personality.
the trouble with our esteemed leaders is that they actually come to believe the hype created by the media and go on to develop megalomaniac ways; mrs thatcher was one such individual who was booted out by the very same men who led her to believe she was a fantastic individual - the only time i felt sorry for her was the way in which they decided to give her the boot - not very gentlemenly behaviour but absolutely in keeping with the lack of morals amongst some politicians.
mr blair is now in a very similar position; i did protest against us going to war with iraq; but now believe that it is good that the american army is being kept in check by the presence of other forces in the middle east. -
Message 16
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 4th January 2006
Damn John,
That's dark stuff. Vietnam was a seriously bad place to be from what you're saying there. At the same time though, surely you must admit that the war was responsible for making people behave this way rather than the other way round?
I find it a very difficult question to ask myself, how I would have behaved in a similar situation. I'm guessing this would be a situation where this village is either supporting enemy forces, or actually inhabited by those same enemies, and using "hit and run" type tactics (pop up, ambush, then melt away) over and over again. I don't honestly know how I would have reacted to such a situation. It is something you can't really answer without being in that situation.
Referring to your comments on Bengali troops fighting for Japan, I'm not entirely sure, as working off memory, but I recall correctly they were troops who had deserted from British Indian army units. However, there were even as recently as the Falklands in 1982 instances where mercenaries were shot by British troops after a battle (Again, if my memory is correct several US mercenaries were captured after opening fire on British troops under a flag of truce, and they seriously thought they would just be repatriated to the US-the Paras had other ideas)
Best wishes,
DL -
Message 17
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 4th January 2006
Hi Peepys,
My take on Northern Ireland? I don't honestly know, since there is no clearly defined "good and bad" in the conflict. The origins of the "troubles" lie in religious sectarian attacks on Catholics by Protestant Loyalist mobs. The army was initially deployed to stop this, and it all spiralled out from there. All sides involved have committed atrocities. As for combatants on the various sides, be they loyalist or republican, if they were able to stand up and fight against soldiers, then they can call themselves soldiers (and by fight I do not mean plant a bomb and blow it up from far away when a bus load of Bandsmen drive past, that is cowardly). But those who blow up war memorials, pubs, hotels, and shops, and gun down off duty policemen, and shoot people on their doorsteps are terrorists. They are criminals, and should be punished as per the law.
However, despite the distaste I feel towards the leadership in all sides, I do understand the reason why they have to be part of a political settlement.
If you are talking about the causes of the conflict, then no, I have no idea what makes people feel that they must kill in the name of any religion. It is the greatest crime imaginable IMO. Northern Ireland has its roots in religious divide, and the idiotic bigotry fed into people over generations of hate, and as such, it was a totally senseless, pointless waste of life, and utterly beyond my comprehension.
If we are talking mainly in this case (as it is starting to appear to me) about the current war in Iraq, then I would have to say that I do not agree with the reasons why we are there. The whole thing seems to have degenerated into a grab for oil, and I am not comfortable with it. Had we gone in, removed Saddam and then got out and left the Iraqis to try to live in peace, then yes, but there are too many US corporations making too much money out of this for my liking.
With regards to al-Qaeda, the war on terror and so on, there is no other solution other than force. How do you sit down and negotiate with a bunch of religious fanatics who believe that all we stand for is evil, we are Satan incarnate and should be destroyed? You cannot negotiate peace with someone who believes that his eternal salvation lies in blowing up a train full of innocent people. Suicide bombers do not believe they have a voice? Rubbish. Everyone has a voice, the problem is that these "voiceless" people get totally indoctrinated with hate towards us by so called "religious leaders" into believing any old rubbish. My view is that suicide bombers do not deserve a voice. If someone hates their own society enough to kill indiscriminately, then they should just leave. They have the freedom to do so. To kill in order to attempt to promote a minority religion, then they should definitely leave.
What you say about educating people not to hate is totally spot on, but at the same time, there are many around the world who are educating their children in the opposite way, teaching them to hate, to fear and to despise, so we remain trapped in this cycle of death and destruction. If we want to see the world become a better place, then we must try to help all other countries, to offer them a hand of friendship, but they must also be fully aware that the other hand carries not friendship, but death and destruction. I guess this is called diplomacy.
I too believed once that the world was a nice place, full of fascinating and interesting people, who were by and large good. The Bosnian Serb militias ripped that idea from my mind for all term, when I saw what they were capable of doing to human beings. The only way to stop that was by massive military power, or it would still be going on today. After that, I knew for certain that people are inherently capable of great acts of evil. There is only a thin barrier between civilisation and chaos, and we HAVE to protect that barrier.
Cliched quote,
"Only the dead have seen the end of war"
DL -
Message 18
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 4th January 2006
Peppys,
Just had a thought. What would you suggest as an alternative way of defending our country and its way of life? I can't think of anything.
Any ideas?
DL -
Message 19
Posted by Scottish Librarian (U1772828) on Wednesday, 4th January 2006
i believe that the majority of those who seek to find fulfilment (whether career orientated or just the thrill of the kill)within these organisations deserve to die, and a slow and painful death is not bad enough for them.
Μύ
I find that to be quite possibly the most repugnant comment ive seen on these boards, particularly as i have a relative in Iraq at the moment (and no, i didnt agree with the war).
Paul -
Message 20
Posted by peepys (U2381451) on Wednesday, 4th January 2006
i am glad we have got past the name calling and starting to have a dialogue - for me the most potent weapon against all of the fighting is to educate our children and they their children against the hate that permeates the world.
there is good being done by many and their efforts should not go to waste.
my arguments against war and all that entails, is that someone somewhere will have a plausible and even logical cause for war.
i have never been in a situation (except within my own marriage) where i have felt so hateful to someone that i want to harm them; and being at war means those feelings and experience becomes the norm and acceptable the longer it goes on.
i have no idea how people cope with being in a war zone, it would do my head in.
my problem with the suicide bombers in the uk was these guys were born in the uk and yet felt sufficiently disaffected to commit those indiscriminate acts which killed and maimed so many. there are generations who have no concept of a life other than war - especially in the middle east. we should get out of there and let them get on with it; i believe we only muddy the waters by being engaged in the war in the middle east; islamic fundamentalist using religious propaganda to promote death and destruction. i have friends within the islamic community and have still to bring this subject up with them - i know that they will not justify the actions of madmen who chose to die and kill others in the pursuit of what they consider is the correct way of living; but it is nevertheless a very touchy subject. -
Message 21
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Wednesday, 4th January 2006
What about the other guy's children, whose education you can't control? Even if we abhor war, which we in our societies do (or we would be alot more militaristic in nature. Just look to history for examples of times when war was really glorified), the guy in the next field might not. How do we stop him coming into our peaceful field with a big stick and hitting us on the head?
I ask in all honesty and respect for an answer
Elistan -
Message 22
Posted by peepys (U2381451) on Wednesday, 4th January 2006
i do not believe there is an answer - we do need do embrace other options if they are available; we have to work harder to find other ways to resolve conflict; arming ourselves up to the teeth is not the way forward for conflict resolution.
the question of arms throws up another thing i do find repulsive: americans have a right to defend their property; with the use of arms if necessary. this has been widely accepted and deaths by shooting seems quite the norm. gun crime does escalate in this society because the arms lobbyist are a potent force to be reckoned with and will not tolerate any reduction in what they see as their basic right.
as long as we argue that it is ok to defend with the gun/weapon then there will always be victims of this crime.
what strikes me most is that we as a society are paralysed when madmen go rampant with rage and take out a few people - we rave and rant about it until the next madman decides to act; but we do not deal with the issue of killing with weapons in an effective way. -
Message 23
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 4th January 2006
I haven't seen much in the way of name-calling on this thread at all, and still find your earlier comments offensive.
However...
It is a very nice idea peppys, but pure idealism.
If every nation in the world handed over its weapons, you could guarantee that someone, somewhere would keep them, with the aim of controlling all the un-armed nations. This is simple human nature.
You are totally correct IMO that the best way to influence peace in the future we can give is education. In this country this is practical. However, can you really see a country such as Iran doing the same? The President of this country claims that Israel should be "wiped off the map", and now claims the holocaust never happened. This man is in charge of the country. How are the children of Iran going to be educated that peace is the way? They are being educated under strict Islamic fundamentalist guidelines (which believe the Koran is the literal way to live, so it is Allah's will that you should conquer and kill non-Muslims, that Jews are actually apes in disguise, that slavery is acceptable, that women should walk around veiled). The future ain't too peaceful there.
These people live under a legal code which belongs in the Middle Ages, and they hate the fact that we don't.
In this country, and maybe some others, it would work, but certainly not all. We see Egyptian TV running a serialised dramatisation of the "Secret Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as if it is an actual historical document, simply spend a few hours searching the internet, and the amount of hate pouring out of the Middle East will astonish you. People take this on board, people believe this stuff. How do you forcibly educate people who hate? You can't.
As for suicide bombers. Disaffected, well I'm sorry but I can't stick that word. This is Britain, it is not the Islamic Republic of Britain, and it never will be. We respect people's rights to live in their own way in this country, to practice whatever religion they please, and all we expect is the right to do the same. They weren't disaffected, they were brainwashed into believing all that rubbish about suicide bombers going to paradise. That desire to do the acts that they did was "educated" into them. That is the power of education.
Sadly, your idea for educating the world into peaceful coexistence is a pipe-dream. It takes no account for the nasty side of human nature, and fact that education can, and will, be abused into teaching the next generation to hate.
A Prime example, look at the meltdown of Yugoslavia. Under the Communist regime of Tito, the ethnic groups in Yugoslavia lived side by side in peace, despite the atrocities inflicted on the Serbs by the Croats and Bosnians during the Nazi occupation (the Croat Ustase were more Nazi than the Nazis, and the Bosnians formed a Muslim SS Division). The minute the communist dictatorship of Tito ended, Nationalism replaced communism and in no time, all the ethnic hate bubbled back to the surface, and the results, well we all know what happened next.Yet no doubt, the people of Yugoslavia were educated under the communist system that they were all one nation, so 40 years of education counted for nothing.
It is a pipedream I'm afraid, and not the answer IMO. It would help, and it is a start, but unless you control the entire world's education system (which is impossible unless a global dictatorship enforced it) it is never going to work.
DL -
Message 24
Posted by peepys (U2381451) on Thursday, 5th January 2006
education in a formal setting will not always work because the curriculum within formal education systems in most societies is determined by governments in the majority.
parents, however, are just as responsible for educating their children. loads of children who grow up with violence around them, whether it is war or just war at home, are influenced into acting out their aggression which is as a result of seeing how adults react when they do not get their own way. core values are taught to children by parents. u do not need to brainwash your children but spend time explaining, discussing solutions to problems. this is one way to prevent yr son/daughter becoming a 'freedom fighter'.
i understand at some level that some wars had to be fought or we would not enjoy the freedoms we now have. that is history - in today's world, when we know the cost of war, not just the economic, but the fabric of some societies have been so radically changed that it will take generations before they will forget the atrocities done to them; and possibly start a whole new generation of people warring with each other.
the politics of war do make me sick to the stomach; if i can convince just one individual of the wrongness of war, in this day and age, when we count ourselves as civilised; i will regard it as something positive having been achieved. -
Message 25
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Thursday, 5th January 2006
Peepys,
I like your imagery, but I ask again: How do you deal with someone who disagrees and thinks that violence is a perfectly justifiable route to the goal they have in mind, and therefore raises their children to be like-minded?
Elistan -
Message 26
Posted by peepys (U2381451) on Thursday, 5th January 2006
understanding how circumstances determine people's ethic is difficult but it can be done. if, as u describe, violence is all around u, how then do u live peaceably? u do not because violence breeds violence. we do have to seek and persist with ways which will break the vicious cycle; otherwise we are condemning generations of people to the same bleakness.
we cannot continue to justify that violence is a means to get what u want. we just do not have the patience or the mind set to persevere on a course that does not have a violent agenda. -
Message 27
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 5th January 2006
Peepys,
Not many people disagree with you that war is wrong. It shouldn't happen and is nothing but evil let loose on the world. No one is arguing with that fact, especially me. I need no convincing about the wrongness of war, I have seen enough of man's inhumanity to man to last several lifetimes, but the whole "turning swords into ploughshares" thing is impractical and any country which unilaterally disarmed would be committing national suicide.
Hopefully one day our armed forces will be an anachronistic waste of taxpayers money, but they will always be necessary. There is no way around that. Education is a positive force, but also a negative one, and as long as people have irrational hatred, then there will be a need for military force.
No one is disputing the fact that war is wrong, if you read any of my posts, I do not glamorise it, defend it, or make it out to be a positive, exciting experience. What I am saying is that we can never disarm, since to do so will leave us vulnerable, exposed and a target for every lunatic on the planet (which we already are).
DL -
Message 28
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Thursday, 5th January 2006
understanding how circumstances determine people's ethic is difficult but it can be done. if, as u describe, violence is all around u, how then do u live peaceably? u do not because violence breeds violence. we do have to seek and persist with ways which will break the vicious cycle; otherwise we are condemning generations of people to the same bleakness.
we cannot continue to justify that violence is a means to get what u want. we just do not have the patience or the mind set to persevere on a course that does not have a violent agenda.Μύ
Peepys,
I would disagree. We, as a society and a culture, do have the patience and the mind to persevere on a course that does not have a violent agenda.
I am 33 years of age and neither I nor my father, or any member of our generations HAD to go war. Any who did, like DL volunteered to do so. As a society we try to pursue every means possible to maintain the bubble of security within which we exist in a non-violent manner, and we equally try to expand this bubble to incorporate as many peoples and nations ass possible. To my mind this part of the EU experiment, and why no matter how looney it can be at times it is fundamental a good thing, because we all exist within the same bubble of safety and security. But it has edges, we can't deny that, and they can be dark places, and they can be exploited by unscrupulous people for their own ends (as I feel is going on now), but they do exist. Without the armed forces the edges will push in on us, that is all we are saying.
Elistan -
Message 29
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 5th January 2006
Elistan,
As usual I can find no fault whatsoever with your post, and you have put it better than I could have managed. Well said.
Cheers
DL -
Message 30
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Thursday, 5th January 2006
IMO war is just foreign policy conducted on a different level. If there were no economic advantages to it, it would stop instantly.
Additionally, I didn't notice anyone commenting on my statement about someone defending themselves against an attacker on the street an me running to assist them. -
Message 31
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Thursday, 5th January 2006
Jews
The answer is naturaly,you do the right thing if you help to stop that fight.
Pepys
As a member of an army that hasnt been to war for nearly 200 years(Swedens ocupation of Norway 1814),exept UN actions after WWII,is my sad reflection that armed forces still are very nessesary.
IΒ΄v been under UN banner in places like Lebanon,Cyprus,Bosnia and Congo,and is convinced whatewer fine talks about progress and that we should be peacful. The human beeing is still basicly a wild beast and the thin coating of civilisation and humanism disapear sometimes faster than you can blink.
If you think after you find after WWII untolds conflicts with millions dead,quite often friends and neighbors going after each other with everything they had.
Some examples Israel v Arabs,a couple of times Congo,Algeirs,two times Vietnam,Rwanda,Southern Africa(Angola etc),west Africa(Liberia etc),Cyprus,former Yougoslavia,Pakistan v India,Iran v Iraq,2 gulf wars.
1960 in Congo did UN stop a blodbath,in Rwanda and Yougoslavia wasnt they alowed.
As long their is wolfs out their (terrorist,rasist,tyrants etc),you should be glad that their is men and women who take the role as sheepdogs(Police,military),to protect the sheeps(you and the majoroty of the population)so life can go on in an orderly manner.
Hasse -
Message 32
Posted by peepys (U2381451) on Friday, 6th January 2006
hello hasse,
my understanding of war is that it is very profitable for some and the cause of major misery for those caught up in it. as long as there are people who feel there is nothing wrong in signing up for all that it entails, there will always be reasons in some peoples opinion, for going to war. even i, in my ivory tower, accept that.
i have only ever had a chance to discuss the lunacy that goes on in the killing fields, wherever that maybe, in any depth, with one person, who was grossly disturbed because of his experiences within the south african army during the apartheid years. this person is now dead, prematurely, i would say, and being a soldier contributed in some way to his early demise. he did not commit suicide, but as good as - he drank himself to an early death; his suffering was long and painful. the horrors of war is sufficient to drive sane men crazy, my question is how can it not? therefore i would dissuade anybody from taking up arms, cos, in the dark of the night, u my friends will re-live the horrors, and this will slowly poison your soul.
when i listen to the music a former soldier has written, i am not at all surprised at the lyrics which echo with some resonance for me.
killing in self defence is, off course, another subject matter all together.
there maybe many who believe going to war is a noble thing. i strongly disagree with this and will continue to do so. wilfred owen, among other poets have written very poignantly about war, but when you look at the warring factions, there is more bravado, testosterone and machismo than is healthy for a population. -
Message 33
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 6th January 2006
Peepys,
I know all about the memories that come back to haunt you, even years later. I can't however say that this surprises me, I was never an ignorant person, and have always been one who reads up things before making a decision, yet I still made the same choice. Contrary to what you may think of those who do choose to take up arms, we are not mindless automata, we are human beings too. For someone to be disturbed by their experiences in the South African Army during the years when the nation was a racist state doesn't surprise me, since I can not imagine fighting to defend institutional racism is good for your conscience. It is however, a totally different situation than someone being disturbed by their experiences fighting for the United Nations to stop innocent civilians being slaughtered by nationalist thugs.
You mentioned listening to songs written by a former soldier, well I recommend that if you want to get some understanding of what I am talking about, listen to "No Bravery" by James Blunt, and let the words sink in. That song was written about experiences in the NATO campaign in Kosovo, and sums up exactly the situation which I have described to you regarding my own experiences in Bosnia, and the despair which is caused by being surrounded by injustice, hate and mindless murder, and being ordered by politicians sat in safe, warm offices to "not intervene directly". I could never understand why the UN was so focused on getting supplies to civilians instead of defending them, what use is a convoy of food and clothing when those meant to receive them are burned to death in their homes, or shelled while out getting water?
When people do this to those they grew up with as neighbours, then someone has to step in to stop it (as NATO finally did), and to stop it, you need force, lots of it. To paraphrase a bit of US army bravado, "though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, cos I'm the toughest mother.... in the valley". That was the only way to stop the killing, by making it well known to the gangs of thugs and murderers that if they didn't stop the killing of civilians, they would be totally wiped out. That is the only justification for war IMO, political reasons, economic reasons, they are all not good enough, but to go to war for humanitarian reasons (the bizarre paradox of killing to save lives I guess), then that will always be a noble cause, whatever you may think. It is for this reason that although I do still have nightmares (and it is 9 years since I fired a shot in anger), they are never about what I did to stop the scumbag militias in Bosnia, they are always about what I couldn't do to stop them. We didn't do enough. It is all good to say that all life is sacred. It is. But when someone shoots a defenceless man, woman or child because they have a different surname, pray to a different God, look different, whatever, they forfeit that right to have their life considered sacred. Like I said before, no regrets, my conscience is clear on my actions. I still hate war, and all that happens in war, but there are, and always will be circumstances (such as Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo) where armed force is justified and right, and also necessary in order to save life. There is still such a thing as a righteous war, although no such thing as a "good war".
DL -
Message 34
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Friday, 6th January 2006
DL
Hear hear couldnt put it better.
Pepys
As previously stated their is human wolfs prowling,around.
Someones must stop them,sometimes to the price of life,limb and sanity.
How would the world look if their still was one,if the likes of Hitler,Pol Pot,Hutus in Rwanda east Congo,the army og the Lord(Uganda)etc,could go on unchecked.
Contrary to DL have I no nightmares,thinking more of those we did save,than those we did see senslesy murdered and raped,mostly in Bosnia and Congo. It has rather lead to a hate and contempt not only to the scumbags actually doing it,but ecually to the politicos ordering it and our own sending us down with to little to late and on top of it tying our hands.
Its probably the same feelings but canalised in a different way.
Hasse -
Message 35
Posted by lenmadeiros (U781806) on Friday, 6th January 2006
Thank you, DL - your final para is the clearest justification I have ever read for war. I'll even excuse your admiration of James Blunt!
-
Message 36
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 6th January 2006
Many Thanks LenM,
I've been trying to put that into words for a few days now, and I think I finally got across what I meant!
BTW, can't stick any other of James Blunt's stuff! Commercial and sentimental, but that one song is basically a war poem for the 21st Century, and a damn good one. I somehow doubt it will see much in the way of radio play though!!!
Cheers -
Message 37
Posted by lenmadeiros (U781806) on Friday, 6th January 2006
DL - I've followed this debate since it started. It's a no-brainer for me: you'll always come across someone with a big stick who's prepared to use it; it's how you respond to that threat that is important. The ideal world would be populated by people without sticks - but we don't live in that world and never have done.
I think it was my reappraisal of the Falklands Conflict that helped me see the light. In 1982, I was a head up my ars sixth-former, totally anti the war - probably because of Thatcher. Years later, I realised every other PM in history would have done excactly the same as she did ie, send a task-force to defend British sovereign soil to kick out an invading military force. That's what you do when British subjects are invaded.
Glad we agree on James Blunt! -
Message 38
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 6th January 2006
DL - I've followed this debate since it started. It's a no-brainer for me: you'll always come across someone with a big stick who's prepared to use it; it's how you respond to that threat that is important. The ideal world would be populated by people without sticks - but we don't live in that world and never have done.
I think it was my reappraisal of the Falklands Conflict that helped me see the light. In 1982, I was a head up my ars sixth-former, totally anti the war - probably because of Thatcher. Years later, I realised every other PM in history would have done excactly the same as she did ie, send a task-force to defend British sovereign soil to kick out an invading military force. That's what you do when British subjects are invaded.
Glad we agree on James Blunt!Μύ
The Falklands always struck me as an odd one, the Argentinians invaded British territory, populated by people who wish to remain British, so yes that justified a swift military response. How we managed to do it (halfway round the world) when the Thatcher government were all for cutting the military back to a mere skeleton of its former self is highly impressive. However, it was IMO extremely poor timing for our poor nation. Had it not happened till a few years later then Thatcher would have lost the next election without doubt, since she was thought of as a penny pinching right winger by almost everyone I knew at the time. Had she been kicked out of office, the present would be very different since the successful conclusion of the Falklands war kept the evil of Thatcherism in charge of the country for way too long. Yes, any Prime Minister had no choice but to attack and retake the islands, but shame it saved Thatcher's career. I personally still have the "head up my own a**e I hate Thatcher" attitude even now! She won the war, but as a result, Britain lost its manufacturing industrial base. Still, she ensured I will NEVER vote Tory as long as I live, regardless of her response to the Falklands Invasion.
As for James Blunt, even if you can't stand his lovey dovey material, I recommend that one song 110%, since he summed up the feelings of any serviceman who has served on a peacekeeping mission in places where people decided that their neighbours weren't fit to live. The overwhelming sense that things are just "wrong", that there is something so dark and evil it can't be described, and wherever this "wrongness" goes, people die. It literally sucked out the soul of those who went through that (I think in Blunt's case he served in the Kosovo campaign, but it was the same feeling of a land being stalked by evil which just hit a nerve with me). -
Message 39
Posted by lenmadeiros (U781806) on Friday, 6th January 2006
Like you, DL, I am still very anti that woman. I think even if we had have lost that war, the jury's still out as to whether they would have lost a later election. Thatcher versus a very divided opposition would have been close, although the ruthless Tories would almost certainly have dumped her in favour of Howe/other faceless nonentity.
Powerful lyrics from the Blunt man; still can't stand his music, though. -
Message 40
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 6th January 2006
Not sure on whether this will get pulled due to copyright or not, but for those who do not know what I am talking about with regards to this song...
No Bravery
Copyright James Blunt (former Captain, Life Guards, British Army)
There are children standing here
Arms outstretched into the sky
Tears drying on their face
He has been here
Brothers lie in shallow graves
Fathers lost without a trace
A nation blind to their disgrace
He has been here
And I see no bravery
No bravery
In your eyes anymore
Only sadness
Houses burnt beyond repair
The smell of death is in the air
A woman crying in despair
Says he has been here
Tracer lighting up the sky
It's another family's turn to die
A child afraid to even cry out says
He has been here
And I see no bravery
No bravery
In your eyes anymore
Only sadness
There are children standing here
Arms outstretched into the sky
But no one asks the question why
He has been here
Old men kneel to accept their fate
Wives and daughters cut and raped
A generation drenched in hate
He has been here...
The song says it a lot better than just the lyrics, but even as just words, it explains a lot. A lot of reasons why however well intentioned we think we are, people will always have to retain the ability to go to war if it is necessary. For "He" in these words I see it as "He" meaning the real feeling of evil that seemed to be the root cause of all the atrocities that occurred in places like Bosnia and Kosovo. The generation is still drenched in hate, the British troops are still based in these places, and they will remain there for the foreseeable future, because one thing you can be sure of is that if you take away the armed forces which keep the peace in these places, it won't take long for the killing to start all over again. The hate runs deeper than it ever did before, and another generation is growing up to hate its neighbours.
So you see Peepys, why I feel that someone has to be ready to fight to stop this sort of thing from happening over and over again. We said "Never Again" in 1945 when the Holocaust became public knowledge, trouble is we HAVE let it happen again and again. If we hang up our weapons, then it will happen more and more often, and one day it will happen here.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.