Does anyone seriously believe War can realistically be avoided?

[just john]

Some wars that could be avoided perhaps, and I should state I would prefer to do so, there are others where we have little choice but to do our patriotic chore, sometimes we have to stand up and be counted, as in the 2nd world war, didn't we try the alternatives first? did we have a choice, what was the alternative. 

When this happens who should make the decision? and who should we expect to fight them? and how should we treat them afterwards?, is there any escaping these ethical dilemmas . . .

(I am on the correct thread[:)])

[Gardener]

I believe the recent conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan could have and should have been avoided.

A lot of people believe that Blair lied to engender support for the war in Iraq and that the war was therefore illegal. So does there ever come a point when it is acceptable for people withdraw their support for the troops?

[just john]

So do you think the Russians had no cause to go to war there? Do you think if Blair had not, then Bush would not have?

[Quillan]

I don't think you should withdraw your support from the troops, they are just pawns in a political game, its the government. Whilst I agreed with the expulsion of the Iraqis from Kuwait I did not agree with the invasion a few years later, its none of our business, neither is Afghanistan. These last two invasions were antagonistic and questionable as to their legality. If you look at the two Iraq wars both were caused by outside influences. The first because Kuwait was drilling for oil near the border, using American technology to 'bent' their drilling so in actual fact they were really drilling across the border and effectively stealing Iraq's oil. The second was justified by claims of weapons of mass destruction of which strangely none were found nor where any manufacturing plants, only the remnants, which proved Iraq had complied with the UN ruling. So in my mind, and answering the question, yes war can be avoided at times, war should be the very last resort and you need to be very clear on your facts, then triple check before you start on such a venture. Of course being invaded, be it your homeland or dependency is a different matter.

[cooperlola]

Probably not.  Every time I read a reaction to something somebody dislikes that reads something akin to "we should string them up/burn them at the stake/drown them at birth", or whatever then that belief is further and further eroded.

And I'm afraid that religion has a lot to answer for.  I'm told that the ten commandments include one about not killing but it has always seemed to me that few people who subscribe to the idea that there is a god, actually take that one very seriously.

[powerdesal]

[quote user="Gardener"]I believe the recent conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan could have and should have been avoided. A lot of people believe that Blair lied to engender support for the war in Iraq and that the war was therefore illegal. So does there ever come a point when it is acceptable for people withdraw their support for the troops?[/quote] Regarding support for the troops, I think people should realise that, on the whole, soldiers do not like war. War is nasty, dangerous, uncomfortable and a general pain in the ****.That being said, soldiers (as a generic term for all arms) train hard and, to some extent, want to prove themselves. However, they do not have a choice in whether they are sent to war or not, that is a Political choice. Soldiers cannot arbitrarily decide not to take part / not to turn up for work / resign at the drop of a hat. There is in fact no democracy in the forces that fight to defend democracy. There seems to be a misconception in the modern mind that soldiers have a choice of where they are posted or what actions they are required to take part in. By all means withdraw support for the Political masters who send the soldiers to war but IMHO it can not be acceptable to withdraw support for the troops themselves.

[cooperlola]

Unless one is conscripted, then at the very least, servicemen and women must be aware that there's a chance they'll have to fight in a war at some time or another.  However, I do think that the way in which some of the services recruited in the recent past may well have given the impression that it was a nice, well-paid way of getting good training without much attention being paid to the downside - the very real possibility of getting killed or injured.

Whatever, these people do dirty jobs to protect the rest of us and, however misguided we may believe those who send them to be, they certainly deserve our respect.  It always seemed to me to be so sad that US troops returning from Vietnam, for example, were so  badly treated.  An unjust war maybe, but hardly the fault of those who gave their lives and limbs in it.

 

[Gluestick]

[quote user="powerdesal"]

Regarding support for the troops, I think people should realise that, on the whole, soldiers do not like war. War is nasty, dangerous, uncomfortable and a general pain in the ****.That being said, soldiers (as a generic term for all arms) train hard and, to some extent, want to prove themselves. However, they do not have a choice in whether they are sent to war or not, that is a Political choice.

Soldiers cannot arbitrarily decide not to take part / not to turn up for work / resign at the drop of a hat. There is in fact no democracy in the forces that fight to defend democracy. There seems to be a misconception in the modern mind that soldiers have a choice of where they are posted or what actions they are required to take part in.

By all means withdraw support for the Political masters who send the soldiers to war but IMHO it can not be acceptable to withdraw support for the troops themselves.[/quote]

Here, here Steve!

As I stated in the other thread.

To "Take the Queen's shilling" means an absolute commitment to Queen's Regulations: and obedience thereafter.

Castigating serving personnel for political expediency is to accord blame totally in the wrong direction.

And denigrates those who deserve our plaudits and adulation.

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."

   Dwight David Eisenhower

John posed an interesting series of questions seeking answers in the other thread.

I would commend those seeking some explanations of the causes of World War Two (for example) to read Margaret MacMillan's excellent book "Paris 1919: Six months that changed the World."

See here:

My son, bless him, who knows my predilections, gave me this book last year for Christmas. (Beofre you say "Meany!": amongst other things. [:)]).

In seeking answers to the present turmoil in the Middle East, then read the above and Stephen Kinzer's "All the Shah's Men"

See here:

[just john]

[quote user="cooperlola"] the way in which some of the services recruited in the recent past may well have given the impression that it was a nice, well-paid way of getting good training without much attention being paid to the downside - the very real possibility of getting killed or injured. [/quote]

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them. ~Pacifist Badge, 1978

[Mr Coeur de Lion]

We come in peace, shoot to kill. ~Captain James T. Kirk, sometime in the future.

[Renaud]

I that that our part in the first Gulf war was justified and right. The invasion of Iraq was certainly less so, though I supported it at the time.

However the real blunder with that war, was not to plan for the aftermath. Bush did not want to and Blair hadn't thought enough about it.

I supported the first war in Afganistan however again the problem was the aftermath. When John Reid, the Defense Secretary, sent our troops back in he said that he did not expect them to have to fire their weapons. So much for having thought about what might happen.

[PaulT]

Sorry, but I am going to perhaps be controversial.

War is a very important thing.

It kills a lot of people and that reduces the World population.

Where would we be population wise if the 1st and 2nd WWs had not happened?

What is going to happen in the future when the population has grown so large that it cannot be sustained?

Animal instinct is to be territorial and to get as large a territory as possible.

Wars see a major leap in technology

Having siad the above it is a barbaric and upsetting time.

Paul

[idun]

Conflict and war and inevitable. We need to cull ourselves especially as we act so stupidly vis a vis the third world these days.

[Gluestick]

[quote user="PaulT"]

Where would we be population wise if the 1st and 2nd WWs had not happened?

[/quote]

Well, France would be about (probably) 70 Million as against 60 Million population.

America about the same (92 Million 1914 to 250 Million now).

Britain: not too different, say 65 Million.

The problems are Asia, Africa and South America; China in particular.

So, you are advocating wars against these continents to solve global over-population?

(N.B. I quickly checked the pre 1914 and post 1944 demographics for France, Uk, USA etc prior to posting: all on Wiki).

[pachapapa]

Yes by taking positive, evasive, rational and perceptive action it can be avoided.

After years and years of friday afternoons spent in the absolute futility of the Combined Cadet Force.

For those unaware, the CCF is a sort of upper class Army Cadet Force, where one is groomed for Sandhurst, Dartmouth and Cranwell.

Well back to basics, after all that futility I emigrated from the UK in 1958, specifically to avoid National Service.

For those unaware, the National Service was a euphemistic term for conscription.

[Frederick]

What is going to happen in the future when the population has grown so large that it cannot be sustained?

 I imagine the genetically created bug devised to hit only one section of the worlds population  will be set free...Those who have not been selected and been imunised ...bye bye ...

[powerdesal]

[quote user="pachapapa"]

Yes by taking positive, evasive, rational and perceptive action it can be avoided.

After years and years of friday afternoons spent in the absolute futility of the Combined Cadet Force.

For those unaware, the CCF is a sort of upper class Army Cadet Force, where one is groomed for Sandhurst, Dartmouth and Cranwell.

Well back to basics, after all that futility I emigrated from the UK in 1958, specifically to avoid National Service.

For those unaware, the National Service was a euphemistic term for conscription.

[/quote] No, CCF is NOT a sort of upper class Army Cadet Force. CCF is Combined Cadet Force, that is a combination of Army Cadet Force, Air Training Corp and Sea Cadets. Usually at a boarding school where there is no viability for separate cadet forces. It has nothing to do with 'grooming' for Sandhurst, Cranwell or Dartmouth. You are a very bitter person.

[Quillan]

[quote user="powerdesal"][quote user="pachapapa"]

Yes by taking positive, evasive, rational and perceptive action it can be avoided.

After years and years of friday afternoons spent in the absolute futility of the Combined Cadet Force.

For those unaware, the CCF is a sort of upper class Army Cadet Force, where one is groomed for Sandhurst, Dartmouth and Cranwell.

Well back to basics, after all that futility I emigrated from the UK in 1958, specifically to avoid National Service.

For those unaware, the National Service was a euphemistic term for conscription.

[/quote] No, CCF is NOT a sort of upper class Army Cadet Force. CCF is Combined Cadet Force, that is a combination of Army Cadet Force, Air Training Corp and Sea Cadets. Usually at a boarding school where there is no viability for separate cadet forces. It has nothing to do with 'grooming' for Sandhurst, Cranwell or Dartmouth. You are a very bitter person.[/quote]

He is probably confusing the old OTC (Officers Training Corps) system which finished in 1948 when the CCF came in to existence under the Labour government.

[pachapapa]

OTC never heard of it, so no confusion, did 11+ and started Grammar School in 1951, remember the year, went on school trip to the Festival of Britain.

Hey there Abu Dhabi! On TF1 at lunch today with a lead in to the F1 the Ferrari Exhibition was featured with a 240 kmh ride. Looks absolutely fantastic. Have you been on it?

[powerdesal]

I too saw a programme about the Yas Island set up. No I have not been there, It did sound quite interesting but I will stay away this week end as everyone and his dog (or camel) will be there for the GP. Its better to watch it on TV rather than spend a couple of hours trying to park.

Not that I would have much time as Saturday and Sunday are normal working days on site and finishing in the desert at 17.30 does not give much opportunity for such things.

[Gardener]

Should soldiers or the top brass ever question orders?

'Its ( the Army) primary task is to defend the intrerests of the UK'. How long that this been the raison d'etre of the army, has it ever been just to defend the UK if attacked?

I do think the mission statement is really open to wide interpretation and abuse. Shouldn't there be some way of debating this before action is decided upon ? Invasion of British territory may be more cut and dried and urgent but 'interests of the UK' , if this cannot involve the public , certainly it could merit debate between the government of the day and the top brass ,if they can look at it objetively and before any military action is taken?

I think more wars will be instigated because of British "interests" rather than a direct threat of invasion , so I would like to know what these interests involve if blood is going to be spilled in my name.

[powerdesal]

The definition of ''the interests of the UK'' is really the nub of the matter.

It is, IMHO, not the function of the 'soldier' (again a generic term covering all services) to question orders, at least not at a level below CDS etc, the Military cannot work that way. It is certainly the function of the CDS to advise and question the Govt of the day in respect of any planned action.

It is not, in practical terms, feasible to consult the public before any Military action is taken which is my interpretation of what you are asking for in your last sentence.

[Gluestick]

Back to the Queen's Shilling...................

Just imagine if the armed services were run like a borough council!

"I quite like the concept of three squares a day: and pay parade (OK: I know it's history! Indulge my literary and ironic license![:)]).

"I also like the idea of a warm bed: unless in the field. And on this point, the law pertaining to working environment is quite clear! Expecting me to sleep in a muddy field, with temperatures below the statutory minimum of 55 degree is not allowed! Furthermore, I cannot be compelled to wear these ridiculous clothes! What on earth would my friends think!"

"Now, if you require me to do anything, simply shouting at me is not acceptable: I demand, as is my right, prior notice in triplicate of any task allotted and my union representative with me in a meeting - of which due notice must be given, in writing, at least one clear working week prior to such meeting - to decide if such task is effective demotion and/or outside the remit of the job description which forms part of my contract of employment.".

"OOOer! Who is that nasty man holding a commando knife to my throat!"

[:D]

[NickP]

I'm sure that you have heard this old chestnut Gluestick, but considering your posting I think it's worth a reissue

Imagine the Royal Navy in the Napoleonic era, if they operated by the rules we might be expected to abide by...

Nelson: “Order the signal, Hardy.”

Hardy: “Aye, aye sir.”

Nelson: “Hold on, that’s not what I dictated to Flags. What’s the meaning of this?”

Hardy: “Sorry sir?”

Nelson (reading aloud): “‘England expects every person to do his or her duty, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious persuasion or disability.’ What gobbledygook is this?”

Hardy: “Admiralty policy, I’m afraid, sir. We’re an equal opportunities employer now. We had the devil’s own job getting ‘England’ past the censors, lest it be considered racist.”

Nelson: “Gadzooks, Hardy. Hand me my pipe and tobacco.”

Hardy: “Sorry sir. All naval vessels have now been designated smoke-free working environments.”

Nelson: “In that case, break open the rum ration. Let us splice the main brace to steel the men before battle.”

Hardy: “The rum ration has been abolished, Admiral. Its part of the Government’s policy on binge drinking.”

Nelson: “Good heavens, Hardy. I suppose we’d better get on with it........ full speed ahead.”

Hardy: “I think you’ll find that there’s a 4 knot speed limit in this stretch of water.”

Nelson: “Damn it man! We are on the eve of the greatest sea battle in history. We must advance with all dispatch. Report from the crow’s nest, please.”

Hardy: “That won’t be possible, sir.”

Nelson: “What?”

Hardy: “Health and Safety have closed the crow’s nest, sir. No harness. And they said that rope ladders don’t meet regulations. They won’t let anyone up there until a proper scaffolding can be erected.”

Nelson: “Then get me the ship’s carpenter without delay, Hardy.”

Hardy: “He’s busy knocking up a wheelchair access to the fo’c’sle, Admiral.”

Nelson: “Wheelchair access? I’ve never heard anything so absurd.”

Hardy: “Health and safety again, sir. We have to provide a barrier-free environment for the differently abled.”

Nelson: “Differently abled? I’ve only one arm and one eye and I refuse even to hear mention of the word. I didn’t rise to the rank of admiral by playing the disability card.”

Hardy: “Actually, sir, you did. The Royal Navy is under represented in the areas of visual impairment and limb deficiency.”

Nelson: “Whatever next? Give me full sail. The salt spray beckons.”

Hardy: “A couple of problems there too, sir. Health and safety won’t let the crew up the rigging without hard hats. And they don’t want anyone breathing in too much salt - haven’t you seen the adverts?”

Nelson: “I’ve never heard such infamy. Break out the cannon and tell the men to stand by to engage the enemy.”

Hardy: “The men are a bit worried about shooting at anyone, Admiral.”

Nelson: “What? This is mutiny!”

Hardy: “It’s not that, sir. It’s just that they’re afraid of being charged with murder if they actually kill anyone. There’s a couple of legal-aid lawyers on board, watching everyone like hawks.”

Nelson: “Then how are we to sink the Frenchies and the Spanish?”

Hardy: “Actually, sir, we’re not.”

Nelson: “We’re not?”

Hardy: “No, sir. The French and the Spanish are our European partners now. According to the Common Fisheries Policy, we shouldn’t even be in this stretch of water. We could get hit with a claim for compensation.”

Nelson: “But you must hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil.”

Hardy: “I wouldn’t let the ship’s diversity co-ordinator hear you saying that, sir. You’ll be up on disciplinary report.”

Nelson: “You must consider every man an enemy, who speaks ill of your King.”

Hardy: “Not any more, sir. We must be inclusive in this multicultural age. Now put on your Kevlar vest; it’s the rules. It could save your life.”

Nelson: “Don’t tell me - health and safety. Whatever happened to rum, sodomy and the lash?”

Hardy: “As I explained, sir, rum is off the menu! And there’s a ban on corporal punishment.”

Nelson: “What about sodomy?”

Hardy: “I believe that is now legal, sir.”

Nelson: “In that case ...kiss me, Hardy.”

[Gluestick]

I have seen it: but worth reading again.

[:D]