Mortai Gravesend said:
Point out which army they have, ready to invade if we don't have people killing them. All I think that guy needs to do is sit on his ass over here back in this country and that would be enough of a deterrent right now. They're not going to come overseas and try to conquer us to take away our freedom of speech.
So, you genuinely believe that there are no people, in western nations, who are actively attempting to bring about wholesale changes to our culture and way of life, including implementing restrictions on freedom of speech?
You also genuinely believe they have no power whatsoever to attack us?
I would direct you to the 7/7 bombings and 9/11, two actions which demonstrated both intent, and capability to strike at the west. These are simply two successful attacks, what you won't have heard about is the hundreds of arrests, finds of explosive materiel, and general good work done by security forces in order to prevent subsequent attacks.
What you may also not realise, is that much of the training and support these individuals recieved/are recieving, was, and is, coming from nations such as Afghanistan.
Once again, I will state, I know the threat to our freedom is not nearly as strong as it was during the days of World War 2, but I would argue that the prevention of such threats developing to their full extent is much, MUCH better than waiting until there is an actual army sat on our doorstep.
Your speculation about WWII is irrelevant.
No it's not, it's a direct example of a military being required to secure freedom.
No connection has been made to the present day situation. No comparison of circumstances or motives. Nothing.
Really? So, let's have a look at Hitler - a man with a vision, that the whole world should conform to his way of doing things, by force if necessary.
Now, let's have a look at any number of individuals since, men with visions, that the whole would should conform to their way of doing things - by force if necessary.
The main difference is, Hitler was allowed to get pretty damned far with his desires before anybody thought about putting the brakes on. Everybody who has come since has found themselves up against stiff opposition before they could get a head of steam up.
- Once again, I'm going to state (and probably have it ignored) - I'm well aware that the modern British military does not directly fend off some foreign juggernaut of an opponent in order to preserve freedom. However we're still ready to do so if necessary, and it's fairly telling that the last time we weren't properly prepared to do so, a global conflict the likes of which the world had never seen kicked off.
So yeah, I believe that the lesson from history is simple - never assume that there's nobody out there with the intent of taking away things you hold dear. They are out there, and just because they don't have the capability now, doesn't mean they won't if left unchecked.
Saxnot said:
Well, no, you're not accountable for all the actions of the army, but neither are you without any blame.
Cool, I'll shoulder my portion of the blame for Women getting to go to school in Afghanistan, and the people there getting the choice to vote between the asshole politicans that rule them (just like us).
I'm happy with that.
Take for example a hypothetical member of the taliban who hasn't killed anyone, but spends all his time recruiting new members and organising IEDs and rocket attacks (without taking part in them). Clearly, this person would be morally responsible for the deaths of soldiers that are caused by him.
Now take another hypothetical insurgent who is really just a farmer, but has been convinced by our first example that the western forces are here as crusaders and want to destroy the islamic faith. If he kills someone he is responsible as well, but he feels he's just defending his home from invaders.
who of these two is more to blame? the man who doesnt kill himself but causes the death of many, or the man who has killed but does so from admirable motives?
Interesting scenario. What I'd say is that they're both standing in the way of their own peoples freedoms. Honestly, the way Afghanistan is currently being fought, we're not simply slaughtering everybody we come across.
The first individual, yeah he'd probably wake up one night to find some men in black suits kicking his front door down.
The second, well the whole point of what we're doing in Afghanistan is that he wakes up one day to find the infidels have dug his village a well, treated his children of their ailments, opened up a school so that his sons and daughters might have a better life, replaced the Taliban who tax him every cent he earns working his farm with a local police force who are actually there to help, and given him better equipment to help his farm be a little more productive (as well as teaching him how to make sure it stays productive).
If after all that, he still decides that we're infidel invaders coming to destroy his religion... Well, then how does his simple religious ignorance excuse him from an active stance against basic human rights?
Now i'm not saying that you personally are to blame for hundreds of afghani deaths. Rather the opposite, as from what you've told us you have done a lot to help people. But by joining the armed forces you are putting yourself in a moral mire of blame and credit. That is a brave thing to do, no doubt. But it also means you are aiding in morally dubious acts (i.e: killing the man defending his home).
Minor point - Afghani is a currency. Afghan is the correct term for a person from Afghanistan(I know it's a really minor bullshitty point, but some people honestly see it the same way as if somebody called you a Dollar, rather than an American).
Anyway - I see your point. Yes, there have been plenty of morally grey areas in the war in Afghanistan, there still are, but I don't believe that justifies simply allowing the people there to fall back into the dark ages and stay there til the end of time.
I understand that you'd be angry at people who don't respect the sacrifices you've made, but the morality of those sacrifices is not a clear-cut good v. evil.
I'm not angry at anybody regarding any sacrifices I may or may not have made. I simply take umbrage at the idea that what we're doing in Afghanistan should be considered morally wrong simply because it's being done by an Army, when I'd say we're doing what OXFAM wishes they could do, but a damned sight better.
I do agree it's not clear cut good vs evil - the politicians who originally decided to invade don't give a fuck about the actual people of Afghanistan, if they did they wouldn't be pulling us out in about 2 years, way before the job is done. (If Northern Ireland is anything to go by, we'll need another generation at least - You won't convince a 40 year old Talib that the British are evil infidels come to desecrate the great lands of Nad-e Ali, but you can convince his 6 year old grandson that the British troops who have been around his whole life are good people, and their message is the right one), however the soldiers on the ground - even the ones who go out there thinking 'yeah I wanna shoot me some ragheads!' ... After 6 months, they care about those people. Ultimately, who cares why the politicians are sending them out there, if once they're on the ground they become humanitarians? I know plenty of stereotypical racist ignorant retarded infantrymen, who after a 6 month tour have decided that, actually, Afghans are people too, and why shouldn't they get the same opportunities as the rest of us?
Anyway, Saxnot, this has been a long, and ranty post, and I'm sure there will be plenty of comeback from it - I'm going to try and avoid responding, because ultimately I won't change your opinion, you won't change mine, and at least you seem to have thought it out, and I can completely respect that the British Army has morally questionable incidents on its hands - however I'd argue that these are not good enough a reason to give up a fight which I feel is, on the whole, going to make the world a better place.
Mortai ... Just because you have never known a threat to your nation in your lifetime, doesn't mean that one cannot possibly exist in the future. I hope you realise this.
I grew up in a Britain that The IRA(funded, ironically enough, by Americans) were trying to tear apart with violence - these people were actively using violence to try and force a nation (Northern Ireland) to do something they, by democratic vote, didn't want to do. They were stopped, with great effort, by the British Army and the RUC/PSNI.
