Soldiers are guilty, not Politicians

#2
mick_sterbs said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8457885.stm

Just read this
thought it might be of interest.

I know the British Board of Communism is somewhat liberal in its attitude but come on, this is pure bile spouted by an acedemic surely.
David Rodin is a senior research fellow at the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict

Says he is at the bottom........
 
#3
like i said " an acedemic"
paid to right something to assuage left wing guilt and apologist for those who deride the Armed forces
 
#4
The article also says,
"Soldiers undertake great hardships and make extraordinary sacrifices in our names and for our benefit. In the overwhelming majority of cases, they serve with honour, courage and in good faith."

Non-story tbh
 
#5
Non story. Having read the article, I agree with pretty much all of it. In a free society, no group should be above evaluation, criticism, or questioning. That is all the guy is saying, and as a Professor of Ethics, that (sadly) is his job.

If you actually read what he says, he is very even handed and fair over the position of the military in conflict - he shows a level of understanding, and I don't detect extreme left wing bile here at all.

The outrage bus can remain at "Waltcon 3" in my view.
 
#6
DavetheApe said:
Non story. Having read the article, I agree with pretty much all of it. In a free society, no group should be above evaluation, criticism, or questioning. That is all the guy is saying, and as a Professor of Ethics, that (sadly) is his job.

If you actually read what he says, he is very even handed and fair over the position of the military in conflict - he shows a level of understanding, and I don't detect extreme left wing bile here at all.

The outrage bus can remain at "Waltcon 3" in my view.
Agreed. More of a "Thought for the Day" to stimulate debate than pushing a personal manifesto. Which makes a change!
 
#7
IMO it's mostly not bile, just merely stating the obvious. The LOAC and the militarys own values and standards support this.

However the article does seem to imply that both conflicts are illegal and/or unjust which is the big sticking point. If politicians, and indeed society as a whole can't decide whether it's illegal or not, then how do they expect the individual soldier who they've ordered out to fight?

As for selective concientious objection?. It would lead to absolute chaos - that is why we elect our glorious leaders and pay them so much to ensure that they have made the right decision in the first place.

CW

Quis Separabit
Vestigia Nulla Retrorsum
 
#8
570mils said:
mick_sterbs said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8457885.stm

Just read this
thought it might be of interest.

I know the British Board of Communism is somewhat liberal in its attitude but come on, this is pure bile spouted by an acedemic surely.
David Rodin is a senior research fellow at the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict

Says he is at the bottom........
Well he would be at the bottom he is an arrse. Never mind all that. Cracking short video of an asian bird on your post. Highly approved of. My stamp of approval is given unreservedly. :wink:
 
#9
A group that praised the 11 September attacks and mocks the basic liberties of our democracy, can hardly claim to be engaging in an honest and constructive debate on the moral responsibility of serving soldiers.
The bit that annoys me is the use of freedom of speech in the country to propose and promote a system that will allow none for some and little for a few...

The Sharia law idea is practiced in other countries.
go there if you like it so much...
if we are such a decadent/evil country, why come here?


(that not racist is it?) :?
 
#10
CaptainWillard said:
However the article does seem to imply that both conflicts are illegal and/or unjust which is the big sticking point. If politicians, and indeed society as a whole can't decide whether it's illegal or not, then how do they expect the individual soldier who they've ordered out to fight?
I think he is moving from hypothesis:

And yet if the war itself is unjust - as many people believe of the invasion of Iraq, and a smaller number believe of Afghanistan - then those soldiers have participated in the killing of people for no good reason. Ordinarily we would take such action as an occasion for critical reflection, not veneration.
to legal analysis:

International law states that as long as soldiers follow the rules on the conduct of war, they do not act unlawfully by participating in an illegal war.
And his conclusions seem fair - we shouldn't be upset or surprised, as soldiers, if people who think the wars we are fighting in are illegal aren't too keen on supporting us. But that even if the wars are illegal, we are not breaking international law just by taking part. A sensible article, I thought.

Which, incidentally, knocks the bollocks off the recently-hippified not-really-a-conchie argument of "it's an illegal war therefore ordering me to go is an illegal order therefore I've not deserted"
 
#11
As has been said, we are accountable for our actions so no news there. He also says that we put our trust in politicians and a chain of command so in effect we are acting under duress. I agree with much of what he writes. But then if we are acting under duress and on the command of politicians then it is they who should be held to account....
 
#12
762baynet said:
But then if we are acting under duress and on the command of politicians then it is they who should be held to account....
Hrrm, are you sure you've taken your medication this morning? A modern politician held to account? You must be dreaming it's still last century, when 1 or 2 of them still had some degree of honour and integrity.
 
#13
Idrach said:
762baynet said:
But then if we are acting under duress and on the command of politicians then it is they who should be held to account....
Hrrm, are you sure you've taken your medication this morning? A modern politician held to account? You must be dreaming it's still last century, when 1 or 2 of them still had some degree of honour and integrity.
No, I meant it! It is the way it should be, rather than the way it is- kind of utopian, if you like.
 
#14
I wanna see student/liberals etc understand that we do as our 'masters' tell us to do (brass) who do as their 'masters' (MoD/HoP) tell them to....

all put in place by people who voted in greater numbers for The X Factor than they did in the General election...

do they want an Military who can decide/vote when and where and if they fight?


sounds good to me...

Regime change begins at home :idea: ... as a wise person once said!
 
#15
Fairly balabced article, but i dont understand some of the reasoning. If you believe the wars are illegal/dubious reasoning etc thats fine. But what does this man think the British Army are doing? slaughtering whole villages of people Nazi SS style? Surely someone against the war can still see that giving Saddam Husseins mob/the Taliban a hiding is not a bad thing?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top