If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options
Comments
I've read plenty of history. I've also served in the British Army and worked in the civil service. Funnily enough I have a different analysis of the state than you.
I'm no fan of Stalinism or authoratarian communism in general, but to think that the US behaves any better is absurd. Look at the US involvement in Chile, Nicaragua, its current involvement in Iraq, Guantanomo Bay, the CIA disappearing suspected terrorists to torture camps in Egypt etc. US involvement in Vietnam (or any other country) had nothing to do with freedoms, human rights or any of that. It was to do with an idealogical battle, US hegemony and imperalism and ultimately the expansion of capital and markets.
If I might paraphrase Socrates:
1. One ought to fulfil one’s agreements or promises.
2. Breaking one’s agreement wrongs the promissee.
3. NQA has promised Queen and country to obey orders.
4. Disobeying violates one’s agreement with Queen and country.
5. Disobeying, therefore, harms or wrongs Queen and country.
6. Disobeying is unjust.
So what do you think its role is? Why do you think the Queen and the state are here to protect the interests of the majority? What can you point to in history to back up your pov?
So agreeing to serve blindly just because you have agreed is the right thing to do? Abdicating any personal responsibility?
No, what's absurd is saying that there's any comparison between Stalinism and the US...
...even taking into account all of these things (although frankly I see the idea of US hegemony and imperialism as spin - they could equally be seen as an attempt to maintain a safe world in their best interests...which I think is the main aim of the state).
The CIA is a law unto itself though. It's quite possible to despise their work and admire the US.
NQA has already said he never did abdicate personal responsibility.
The passage I've paraphrased there is from Socrates' reply to Critias in a prison cell after Socrates' trial. Critias tells Socrates he can help him escape. That passage is the opening argument that Socrates gives as to why he cannot. He accepts that the Athenian courts have found him guilty and takes the hemlock they give him in execution.
NQA potentially took the ultimate personal responsibility in that he could have been asked to give his life in service of his country.
I didn't compare them.
Who's interests exactly?
Who's work do you think the CIA does?
Yes he has. My country right or wrong.
Even when his country is wrong and not acting in the interests of its citizens?
A one line remark - I later clarified to say that at some point there could have theoretically come a point when I refused to do the bidding of my superiors,
It would depend to the extent - I don't think Kosovo was neccessarily in the interests o the British (though it may well have been in the interest of Kosovan Albanians) - I would have thought that refusing to obey an order to go was worse as it puts the soldier above the Government.
I've already said that everyone muust have a line and at that point you have to decide whether mutiny and the military putting itself above a democratically elected Government is a lesser evil than the actions of that Government
Yes you did. 'To think that the US behaves any better'. 'Better', as I'm sure you know, is the part of speech known as a 'comparative'.
The interests of the citizens of the US I should imagine. I'm not naive enough to think that a state shouldn't put that first.
Christ only knows...
:yes: Put better than I could.
Is whose opinion are those people "innocent"?
No, I didn't compare them on a like for like basis. You were on about fighting for freedom - if you think thats what US foreign policy is about then you're crazy. It has nothing to do with freedom, unless you mean freedom for a minority to exploit the majority.
You'd imagine. How about the reality now?
I'll tell you. The work of the US - protecting the US's position of power and dominance and the right of US capital interests to continue exploiting people and resources for the personal gain of a minority of people.
I have been called a murderer, a rapist, a baby-killer, and alot of other things on this forum... what I should like to have clarified is WHO EXACTLY are those "innocents" I am supposed to have killed, and WHO EXACTLY witnessed those acts? We are not referring to philosophical perspective, but... to REALITY. Easy for the most in this place to pat themselves upon their backsides at their idiological lofty ideals, but... it is rather a different thing to find yourself in the midst of war, rather than merely gossiping over your tea, or posting words on an internet forum.
If you are going to claim that an individual must make him/herself individually accountable for their actions, regardless of whether or not that individual is following orders, then you must also villanize an individual according to THEIR OWN ACTIONS, rather than paint with broad strokes of supposition.
My respects, NQA... you have perspective to speak from, whether we agree or do not. You have the experiences within the military to base that perspective upon, not merely the self-righteous buffoonery of those pampered and protected within their bubble of ignorance.
you havent been called a baby killer... we're not that cruel, you done what you thought was the right thing, personally i think it wasnt, however, we have hindsight which is a wonderful thing
however you are in some control of your own actions, otherwise all those nazi soldiers who said "we were following orders" should have been let off when personally they shouldnt have, even if they were brainwashed from a young age
In general, a free world suits American security much better than a non-free one. Since I've been involved in policy making before, I know that it's people like us that do the job.
Again, in a democracy, it's in the best interests of the government to act in the best interests of the people. The government is not a thinking entity, it's the result of thousands of people, their research and decision-making.
If you like. It's impossible to argue a position of any credibility since I don't have access to the CIA's files. We can only guess.
Most of them were let off on that excuse. Only those engaged in the most heinous of war and civil crimes were punished.
But eitherway, alot, to many, innocents died in that war. It was the right idea at the time. Lack of tactics or thinking or the higher ranking folks part was a bad move.
Nice terms, but meaningless. Free world for who? Free to do what? Be exploited by US capital?
Yes, you'd think so wouldn't you? How about some reality now?
No, its the result of a minority of people protecting their own interests.
And the Vietcong lost, anyway. They were virtually wiped out during the Tet Offensive.
What the most here seem not to realize is that the Vietcong were domestic terrorists. They targeted their own countrymen, and murdered them by the tens of thousands; while there was collateral civilian deaths attributable to the US forces, the Vietcong TARGETED their own countrymen. Consider your own London bombers, and multiply that thousands of times. They were non-uniformed combatants, and by the Geneva and Hague Conventions, were to be executed upon discovery.
Why condemn them? By your reasoning, those recent bombings of London were "heroic"; is that your position? Rooting for them, now are you?
And even if you can justify Hiroshima on the basis that the Japanese needed a practical demonstration of the futility of resistance, what was Nagasaki a few days later but a gratuitous and ignoble act?
I had a few distractions while typing this too, but don't let that stop you from addressing the substance of my post...
Kent State *ahem* Kent State
If you are such a fucking moron as to be unable to devine the difference between the Vietcong targeting and murdering the population in a terror campaign, and the reaction of the National Guard against a riotous mob hurling rocks and broken bottles - with a history of arson - then you are undeserving of commentary, because your mind is already sealed by your prejudices, and you wish nothing more than the opportunity to continue your inanities.
Comparing four individuals killed during a riot to tens of thousands murdered simply for going about their non-involved lives, is the act of a simple minded imbecile.
The Japanese were quick to surrender, after Hiroshima, weren't they? Nagasaki was necessary to press the point that it would not be an isolated instance, but that the attacks would continue until either Japan surrendered, or the land mass ceased to be.
And if you cannot differentiate between a military battle against Japan, and a battle between a terrorist force in Iraq, then join Blagsta amongst the hopelessly inane.
Still have not figured out that the little box at the bottom of the page showing users on that topic, shows your name in italics when you are responding? Difficult concept to master, for one of your limited capability, I should imagine. Perhaps by posting this jewel here, I might free you from your dilemma, and allow you more opportunity to focus upon your inanities.
Perhaps you might address that to all? Or is it a matter of selective enforcement of "protocols"?
It is permitted to call me a "murderer", as has been done repeatedly on this forum, but NOT permitted for me to respond to the spurious insults of those who prefer their ignorance to "debate"?
There are posters such as MoK and Moroccan Roll who disagree with my politics most vehemently, yet do not lower themselves to the "childish insults" as are hurled in my direction continually. When I come here, I come to debate, and am met by closed minds of children such as Blagsta who cannot differentiate between the Vietcong TARGETING civilians, and the collateral deaths of civilians from the US targeting military and terrorist targets.
I left a gallon of my blood in Vietnam: I was wounded three times by rifle fire, and once by a grenade blowing up virtually in my face. I witness the scars upon my body every damned day, and endure the lasting effects of those wounds decades later. My first tour - 13 months, not counting rehab time from wounds - was with the 1st Battalion, 9th Marines... "The Walking Dead" as Ho Chi Minh named us, because of the high casualty rate inflicted upon us. I watched over 100 Marines bleed out around me, and those Marines died fighting to PROTECT the civilian population in Vietnam, rather than "murder" them as the vile and disparaging lie proffered on this thread would have you believe. I accept the filth directed toward me in this forum as the cost of confronting those lies, but... those whose sacrifice has never ended are the REAL targets of said filth; I will NOT stand mute and allow their honor to be so stupidly, ignorantly demeaned by those who have not a clue as to what transpired in that time, in that place.
I requested my second tour because I saw what was to come, if we left that place without bringing a MILITARY victory to the conflict: the coming genocide of the Dega, the killing fields of Pol Pot, the deaths of millions, in our absence. The willfully ignorant either shield themselves from that reality, or are a part of the genocide by their own free will... as they attribute the civilian deaths caused by the VC and NVA to the US forces, so gleefully. They perpetuate the lie.
You have driven Greenhat from this forum, shut him up because he would not stand down. And I accept that you will ban me again, because having the truth is a dangerous thing to the agenda of revised history, the prevarication that our youth are brought up to accept.
At least admit the hypocrisy of this forum, while you censor the truth.