RapierFugue
Posts: 4740
Joined: 3/16/2006
From: London, England
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: AlwaysLisa
This isn’t aimed at anyone in particular, I just had to reply somewhere.
The problem with these threads is that they rapidly (usually almost immediately), descend from “debate” into personal abuse. But, throwing my hat into the ring once more, here’s my 2d-worth.
I find myself in the somewhat odd position of being anti-war, but not necessarily anti troops; I've got mates who’ve served, some who still do, and by and large I think it’s been a positive experience for them. However;
1. No nation or superpower has the right to police the world. There’s a huge difference between responding to direct threats to one’s sovereign territory, such as WWII and The Falklands Conflict (not a war, note, but a conflict), or trying to “police” an internationally-sanctioned ceasefire or attempt at genocide (Bosnia, Serbia, etc), and trying to extend one’s national “security” by beating the crap out of other nations. Had George W decided to simply bomb the unholy shit out of the Taliban in retaliation for 9/11 I doubt there would have been many who would have spoken against that right. But instead we (the UK and USA) got drawn into a pointless sideshow of a “conflict”, for the wrong reasons (“We didn't like Saddam” is about the best we can see in it now), having been first lied to by our respective governments.
2. That was morally wrong, but it doesn't mean that those people who signed up and served as a result are also morally bankrupt. One could argue they're complicit, but in my experience most people who join the services do so either because a) they genuinely want to defend their country or b) because they see the services as a way out of the somewhat uninspiring and dead-end life they would otherwise have had. This doesn't make them bad people. Not everyone has the brains to make a living from purely civilian endeavours (not saying all services people are dense, merely that they don't refer to certain sections of the forces as “grunts” without good reason – and a couple of my mates would fall, and indeed do label themselves, in such a manner. Again, it doesn't make them bad people) and the services do offer a way for some troubled youths to sort their heads out, get some discipline into their lives, and progress as human beings. A friend of mine was effectively saved from a life of crime and violence in precisely that way – had he not become a Royal Marine I'm absolutely certain he would have ended up in prison, probably for life. He's now a decent, hard-working, non-violent (indeed anti-violence), moral member of society. Whatever one’s feelings about the military, the fact is that they do offer a great many young men (and women these days) a way to better and discover themselves.
3. I rather get the impression that some people, and I’m not singling anyone out here, have an issue with the military, to such an extent that they can’t differentiate between the concept of military conflicts, and the people who take part in them. I can’t work out if these are genuinely held beliefs or simple trolling in order to attempt to cause upset, but in most cases it seems to be the latter, although there was one chap a long while back who made some very polite and cogent anti-war, anti-military arguments without resorting to spiteful trolling. Sadly, such people are a rarity.
4. The mere fact you've served, or even lost loved ones in service does not make you automatically right, nor others automatically wrong. In fairness I tend to see more calm, rational argument from those sort than the other, anti-military sort, but they do occasionally (and I'm not naming names here, but GT I'm including you in this  ) allow their emotions to get the better of them. I can fully understand why, since it’s a topic very close to home, but when dealing with trolls or those showing trollish behaviour there's really very little point in “biting” in reply, since a bite is what they're after in the first place; it’s merely a desire for recognition, any recognition; their inadequacies as human beings are not your mission to fix.
5. The OP video was typically “rah-rah”; having lived in the US I'm familiar with the way people are surrounded by this sort of thing, cradle to grave, so it sort of blends into the background, but for many others not raised the American way it can appear, and indeed often does appear, as pompous, unthinking flag waving, by sheep-like individuals. What they don't realise is that, “back home”, it’s just people showing a pride in their nation, and military strength (something that's become very un-PC to do these days, but I reckon if you're going to spend 20% of your GDP on things that go “whoosh-BANG!”, you might as well get your money’s worth, ergo it doesn't bother me most of the time). You should be aware though that to others it can appear somewhat crass and moronic.
6. There is no link between the freedoms enjoyed by the USA and UK now, and its serving military personnel; they do not “defend our freedom”, they do not “ensure democracy”, nor do they “protect our rights”; the last time that was true was WWII, and we both needed the Commonwealth, Russians and others to help out in order to win. What current personnel are doing is enforcing the political will and security policy of their respective nations. There's no shame in that, it’s what they're supposed to do, after all. But trying to dress it up as “fighting for freedom” or “fighting for freedom of speech” is incorrect, in my opinion, and the opinion of many others. Unless and until the USA declares war on Mexico and/or Canada (and I hope we’re agreed that's a pretty remote eventuality), its “freedoms” (and it has many laudable freedoms) cannot be said to be under threat from without.
7. Neither nation (USA or UK) does enough to cushion or rehabilitate our service personnel upon their return to civilian life. This I have to say I find reprehensible, in that if one fights on behalf of one’s nation’s interests (for whatever political reason or command), one should have the right to decent psychological and clinical aftercare. What is amazing isn't so much that Vietnam vets were treated so badly (which was very wrong), but that so little progress has been made in treatment and support in the intervening 50 years. It’s frankly scandalous to ask that young people fight for their country, only to all but abandon them come their return.
8. If certain people aren’t trolling then could they please have the manners to understand the pain that many service personnel have been through (albeit at their own behest I grant you), and more importantly, to show a little restraint and good grace when speaking to people who have identified themselves as having lost loved ones in that way. You wouldn’t (I hope) find out someone’s father had died in a car crash and immediately launch into a tirade about how they must have been a really shitty driver, so why immediately go to DefCon IV when faced with nothing more provocative than a slightly cheesy video about some chaps singing a few marching songs. You're of course free to do as you wish, but don't be surprised if, choosing to ignore the above, you find yourself labelled a troll.
In short, can we just show a little respect on both sides, and attempt to either discuss complex topics sensibly, with a degree of restraint, or just STFU.
And if that lot doesn't see me laid into by both sides then I’ll be very surprised 
|
RE: Another Tribute to Veterans - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread