Share This Page:

  

dilema

General discussions on joining & training in the Royal Marines.
Doc
Guest
Guest

Post by Doc »

im2skill wrote:I don't believe in right or wrong, heaven or hell.

I couldn't give a shit who the f@#k I'm killing as long as I get payed.
I'll give you a tenner to kill yourself then 8)
GGHT
Member
Member
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue 23 Aug, 2005 1:31 pm
Location: SW Valleys

Post by GGHT »

Bliartheliar wrote:

Plus, coalition bombing has killed more civilians than terrorism. Events such as 7/7 is a very small price that we have to pay for large proportionas of the population supporting the bombing of another country thousands of miles away.
Hmm, 7/7 small price eh...that's almost too ludicrous a statement to respond to, seeing as about 80% of the populace are opposed to the ongoing situation in Iraq.

Bliar I've noted in the past that you are very Politically minded for someone of our age group but bombarding us with half-truths you've picked up on your degree course then passing it off as absolute fact is a little misleading.

Anyway Bliar you'r on a site for lads who want to join the Royal Marine's and your telling us that if push came to shove you'd fight against us?

C'mon mate!
borisimo
Member
Member
Posts: 339
Joined: Mon 28 Nov, 2005 11:01 pm
Location: UK

Post by borisimo »

British and American soldiers do not have a right to be there
they do because they are there on behalf of the iraqi government which is democratically elected by the iraqi people.

bin laden is in it to spread extreme islam, he sees his option as the only option. anyone else is an 'infidel'

the guy has similarities to hitler, and the fact that he constantly targets civilians that disagree with the wests policies shows that he is a total nub.

and id tend to agree with everything GGHT said.
Last edited by borisimo on Fri 09 Dec, 2005 8:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
hc00
Member
Member
Posts: 184
Joined: Wed 19 Oct, 2005 10:14 am
Location: Runcorn

Post by hc00 »

Bliartheliar wrote:People are complicant to war on foreign soil as long as the effect of that war does not reach home - little reason why terrorism occurs.
Are you saying that terrorism is caused by a countries actions.

While this can be some of the reason the main reason for terrorism is simply that they dont believe in our views, or our way of life and then decide to attack it, yes actions like the invasion of Iraq do cause more terrorism, but as long as different people believe diferent things, there will always be terrorism.

Anyway, I agree that the Iraq war wasn't justified, but (apart from the deaths) only good has come of it. The populace has a chance for democracy, they no longer have to fear being exterminated because saddam decides they need to be.

And we have a supply of oil (the americans will share with us, at least I hope they will.)
And yes, Bin Ladens grieviences are rooted in genuine concerns although his methods are not jsutified - poverty, opression, injustice. And terrorism is mrely a tactic that is only practiced by a minority
No they arent, his primary reason for his actions are to spread his beliefs (although he did state that his actions were because there are american troops in Saudi arabia before the 9/11 attacks but he was lieing)

I agree with a war which, even if founded on false pretences, provides progress for the civilians.


And you say that the insurgancy arent responsible for terrorism, the methods they use to fight the coalition produce many more casualties than the methods we use too fight them.

They use explosives (IEDs and Car bombs) which they detonate as coalition forces pass by, they dont give a flying f@#k about how many innocents there are near the bomb, or how many will be killed.

And as far as Im aware the killing of innocents for your beliefs is terrorism.

(as alot of the insurgents arent fighting for saddam, just against democracy and christian values.)
Wo zhu ni jian kang.
letsrole
Member
Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Fri 27 Jan, 2006 4:08 pm
Location: Lyneham

Post by letsrole »

You cannot say that they are killing in the name of Islam, that’s crap. Killing is against Islam! So therefore they are not true Muslims.
dwarfy
Member
Member
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed 23 Nov, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: somerset

Post by dwarfy »

Bliartheliar,

You are entitled to your opinion as is everyone else, however i strongly believe this is NOT the place to air your views. You have listed recent wars/conflicts in which many people on here may have been involved in, and at the very least will have known good friends and oppo,s that were. Have a think about how some people may find your views a little unsettleling? Some may be understandably very annoyed.

As for your comments on which wars YOU did or did not agree with, i would say this, if you decide to sign up, it will not matter wether you agree or not im afraid, you WILL go where you are told, or you will leave. If you cannot accept this then you should not join, you say " i,d basicly refuse orders that i did not beleive in", to be honest if that is the case, stay well away, as you seem to have disagreed with many of the recent conflicts. You are not asked wether you would like to follow an order or not, you are told to follow an order and you ask no questions. For the record i think you will find many of the guys in Iraq are there as much for their oppo,s as anything else, and their opinions on the rights and wrongs of them being there are erelavent when the s*** hits the fan and you and your section are trying to keep each other alive.

Im hoping to re-join the RM next year, and i believe strongly that the British armed forces are a force for good, if i had any doubt about this i would not be considering this as the path i wish to go down. Given what you have written in some of your posts i think you should question whether its the right one for you.

dwarfy
Sarastro
Member
Member
Posts: 1066
Joined: Tue 29 Nov, 2005 11:57 pm
Location: Elsewhere
Contact:

Post by Sarastro »

Blairtheliar, you're right, there is a lot of naivete here, and much of it is yours. You might claim to be only 'left-leaning', but most of what you are saying seems to be quoted chapter and verse from the Gospel according to Galloway - no particular problem with that, but if at the same time you are suggesting that people here take (opposite) political rhetoric as fact, it becomes a little hypocritical. Accusing other people of being deluded or brainwashed while touting your own opinions as the only truth is the mark of a fundamentalist doctrine, not a logical argument.

....because logic is what you are missing at the moment. A few points:

1. You say re: resistance violence in Iraq that 'a lot of it is justified', thus some of it is not justified. This is fine - there are many groups of insurgents there, encompassing those who are resisting foreign troops (which I take for you to mean justified) as well as Islamists who are randomly killing civilians, or gangs who are simply trying to seize power in their particular pissing grounds (both of which you would be hard pressed to justify). Even sympathetic - to your argument - estimates, however, suggest that by far the largest group of these three is the latter, ex-Saddamists or Shia militiamen trying to seize power by force. So the largest amount of resistance violence (and that which for over a year has been responsible for the largest number of civilian deaths through sectarian clashes, murder, organised crime etc, as well as indiscriminate bombing) is, unless you want to argue otherwise, unjustifiable.

However, you say that British and American troops are completely unjustified in their actions, since they do not belong there. Except that for a long while now, the British and US troops have been there, and remain there, at the request of a democratically elected Iraqi government. You can argue that they are simply coalition puppets elevated by shady backroom deals, but you could argue the same thing about George Bush. The sad fact is that democracy means accepting the result whether the coin comes down on your side or not.

Furthermore the same sympathetic-to-your-argument voices readily admit that the vast majority of US and British troops are doing good works, are a stabilising influence (as individuals), and do a superb job with good intentions. It is their political prescence and the actions of an admitted few in abuses of power or dereliction of duty which the left is arguing against.

So explain to me again how British and US troops, who are in Iraq at the request of her sovereign government, and of whom the majority are acknowledged on both sides of the argument to be doing a fine job under difficult circumstances are commiting unjustified violence; while insurgents trying to grab local power and thus destabilise the country to the point of civil war through any means including the intimidation and killing of the civilian population are commiting justified violence?

2. If it's a choice between British troops and insurgents you choose the latter, but you say that it hasn't come down to that yet so it's no problem. Very simple. If you join the RM and are in your unit facing insurgents it WILL come down to that. Presumably you would switch sides?

3. If the UN had a standing army you would join them immediately. Aside from the fact that a UN standing army would violate the intention and code of the UN...

The UN does have military force drawn from its constituent states but under UN command. However, these forces have been almost entirely useless and indecisively led wherever they have been deployed. In some cases, they have simply walked away from the very conflicts they were meant to prevent. Do you really want to join the force which under their very eyes allowed massacres in Rwanda and Srebrenica to happen, and is largely allowing Darfur to continue?

There is a huge debate about the role and effectiveness of the UN which I don't intend to get in to here, but suffice to say your apparently rosy view of them could be slightly more informed.

4. You think Afghanistan was justified. How so exactly? Afghanistan did not attack the US or Britain, terrorist elements living in the country did. Yet we invaded the whole country and deposed the government. We did not even aim at the Al Qaeda camps, we aimed straight at Kabul and left Bin Laden for later. How exactly is this different to Iraq? Perhaps you feel that the confluence of the 9/11 attacks and the support of much of the population and government towards the terrorists in their country justified the invasion? If so, continuing that line of reasoning, countries which currently fit that profile which you must support invading: Iran, Syria, Pakistan, and, er, Iraq (again).

I have to go to physio now, so part 2 comes later.
dwarfy
Member
Member
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed 23 Nov, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: somerset

Post by dwarfy »

Sarastro wrote: I have to go to physio now, so part 2 comes later.
i dont believe you, i think your going to do some web based research in order to substantiate part 2 of your essay, but well done though.
Sarastro
Member
Member
Posts: 1066
Joined: Tue 29 Nov, 2005 11:57 pm
Location: Elsewhere
Contact:

Post by Sarastro »

Just because I'm talking politics doesn't automatically mean I'm lying Dwarfy. :wink: So now that I'm back from my physio...

Part 2: The Empire Strikes Back

Plenty of other contradictory examples like the above in what you have written, but not going to go into those at length because, well, everyone will get bored and piss off.

What I would like to puncture, however, is your basic tenet on what is commonly refered to as modern imperialism, 'exporting democracy', US and British troops galavanting all over the globe to bring peace, justice and the [Anglo-]American Way to the heathen. Not, in fact, to deny it - it is essentially true, certainly as presented by the Bush administration - but to point out that Western 'imperialism' has been alive and well for decades and you, I and almost everyone decrying military imperialism in Iraq have been part of it, benefiting from it, and being very, very quiet about it. In fact, unless you have been living in a tree for thirty years or hiking around the world to have a ruck at the G8, you don't have a leg to stand on. It's the economy, stupid.

Western (mostly American) economics, trade, and the success of the capitalist system have been quietly insinuating themselves around the world since the end of the Second World War, and in doing so we have both been exporting Western culture, and in many places exploiting the cultures we impose on by using both cheap labour and goods from these countries, and using economic power to control or block their own development. This is a large contributing fact to Middle-Eastern feelings of international injustice. Actually, if you are smart and 'left-leaning', you should be arguing FOR military imperialism over its cultural and economic forms. It's bloody hard to maintain, takes a huge amount of men and money, and provides a clear target to resist in the countries you are trying to colonise. Look at the results of European imperalism in the 18th and 19th centuries. Former colonies Europe still control / have troops in...er, the Falklands, Ivory Coast, um, Nepal, Brunei (kinda). But India still drinks tea, plays cricket, half of Africa and Canada speak French as a second language, and EVERYONE speaks English and uses our legal system. Cultural imperalism sticks, military imperialism fails.

So, wait a second, say you; 'Then I'm right!'. Perhaps. But what exactly are you doing about it? University age usually means a boycott on Nestle, Nike trainers, and much earnest discussion about Marxism. But how about the food you eat (screwing third world farmers), clothes you wear (cheap labour imports), transport you take (you were mentioning Iraqi oil?), etc, etc. How do you think you are reading this? US run internet has been the single largest factor in globalising capitalism.

In fact, as a student, you are most likely a relatively benign influence. Where it gets really interesting is this: on average in the West the richer you get, the more liberal you become (aside from the super-rich), the more likely you are to disagree with capitalist / globalised policies which made you rich in the first place, and yet do exactly nothing about it. I've been at a friend's Hampstead engagement dinner party, eating Sainsburys food, (organic of course, and thus more expensive, which just makes Sainsburys richer, and allows them to lower their prices on imported food, grab a larger share of the market, and expand exploitation of developing world produce where they get 90% of their product), espousing the evils of capitalism and globalisation, and flashing a diamond engagement ring. Nothing says I love you like a piece of carbon mined by wage slaves in Africa. I would love to say that this is extraordinary, but it isn't. Most of your mates with a subscription to Socialist Worker, in three years time will have either converted to the other side to earn lots of cash, shut up about their deeply held socialist views, or the worst: earn lots of cash but bang on about how it is wrong.

So read again this statement...
If our politicians and civil society talk about morality, ethics, freedom, etc, they should practise it. Otherwise it is pure hypocracy built upon lack of empathy, apathy and ignorance, and I would [sic; surely "wouldn't"] lay down my life for that.
...and ask yourself if you are really so squeaky clean. I might respectfully suggest that unless you have been living as a self-sufficient hermit your entire life, you already are a hypocrite.

This, of course, is not to suggest these things shouldn't be said. As you pointed out, there would be no difference between democracy and totalitarianism, world tyranny, whatever - though by year two of uni, three at the latest, I suspect you will be subscribing to the view that democracy is, in fact, just tyranny by majority. Though what alternative is there? The left, unfortunately, doesn't have a great record on this. Democracy and Capitalism might look suspiciously like totalitarianism at times, but try telling that to anyone who lived in communist Russia or in modern North Korea. They would laugh in your face. Socialism has a worse record of tyranny than capitalism, in that not every fully capitalist/democratic state has been a totalitarian dictatorship. Every communist state has been. Even the benign ones like Cuba and modern China (which is largely attributed to, shock, the import of capitalist economics).

The basic fact is that human beings have two very deep-rooted instincts which no politics will overcome - social instinct, and survival instinct. This means that people will always, on average, group together and screw other groups over if it is to their advantage. You are never going to change this.

What you can change is YOUR behaviour. We've already covered how your global ideas on economics and justice probably don't live up to your actions. So until you are building that hermitage, at least shut the hell up about them. Or at the very least, don't accuse others of hypocracy. Aside from anything else, people don't tend to listen to hypocrites, you will never convince anyone of your ideas.

In fact, you might do well do ditch the entire liberal moral gospel and start honestly thinking for yourself. Be very clear, I'm not arguing for conservatism here, which has it's own, equally ridiculous, moral hypocracy - the Christian Right has been picked to pieces already for it, I don't need to bother. No matter which side it is on, if morality needs to be taught, it isn't morality. What matters is your conscience, the gut instinct that something is wrong; that is what will make a difference between a soldier torturing Iraqis in Abu Ghraib and standing up and saying no; that is what will make a difference between an aid worker abandoning their charges or standing up to soldiers who would take them away; between the crowd scattering in Tianamen Square and one kid standing in front of a tank.

The Ghandis of this world rarely aimed to change the world, they just listened to conscience, had an indefatiguable will, and the rest is down to luck of the place and time. I guarantee you, when faced with sacrificing your friends, career, life, relying on nice ideals won't make you sacrifice them all to do the right thing, relying on your conscience will.
Last edited by Sarastro on Fri 09 Dec, 2005 11:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bliartheliar
Guest
Guest

Post by Bliartheliar »

Dont get me wrong lads, just playing Devils Advocate a little. I could explain my views further, but i cant be arsed. But I dont agree with all this 'my country right or wrong' attitude that many seem to posess, along with opinions that seem to be taken from ITV news or the Sun.
Sarastro
Member
Member
Posts: 1066
Joined: Tue 29 Nov, 2005 11:57 pm
Location: Elsewhere
Contact:

Post by Sarastro »

Bliartheliar wrote:Dont get me wrong lads, just playing Devils Advocate a little. I could explain my views further, but i cant be arsed. But I dont agree with all this 'my country right or wrong' attitude that many seem to posess, along with opinions that seem to be taken from ITV news or the Sun.
That's a cop out mate, if you are going to be opinionated, defend it when challenged...and taking opinions from CNN and the Guardian isn't any better than ITV and the Sun.
dwarfy
Member
Member
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed 23 Nov, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: somerset

Post by dwarfy »

I think you,l find its more a case of "my oppo,s right or wrong".
proffered
Member
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun 27 Nov, 2005 12:18 pm
Location: Wigan

Post by proffered »

Although this has become a rather profound thread, and obviously one with strong emotions attached to each party's viewpoint, we have yet to hear from the author of this thread.
Come on fella, it would be nice to know how you feel about the above replies.

Sarastro - very eloquent reply, my hat off to you sir.

Adrian
borisimo
Member
Member
Posts: 339
Joined: Mon 28 Nov, 2005 11:01 pm
Location: UK

Post by borisimo »

yeah interesting discussion, and excellent reply sarastro
dalo
Member
Member
Posts: 663
Joined: Tue 20 Dec, 2005 6:03 pm
Location: Aberdeen
Contact:

Post by dalo »

im2skill wrote:I don't believe in right or wrong, heaven or hell.

I couldn't give a shit who the f@#k I'm killing as long as I get payed.
You are a f@£%*&$ idiot!
915 trp every womans pet, every mans regret.
Post Reply