BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 03 May 12 - 01:46 PM

> Why would we wish to differentiate between US & NATO forces and other armies of the world?

Because, as Teribus observed, these forces are instructed in the difference between legal and illegal orders. (Unless by "wrongful" you mean something broader than "illegal," which would be perfectly legitimate, but it would have to be defined.) I can't speak of the forces of other nations. The My Lai Massacre gave instruction in the legality and illegality of orders a higher priority in the U.S. than before. (Even at My Lai, many soldiers stood back from the killing.)

No, American soldiers are not made of any different stuff, but discipline, professionalism, and education made the My Lai incident an anomaly in the past fifty years. Where there's little discipline and scant regard for civilians or the Geneva Conventions - as, for example, in Nanjing, on the Eastern Front in WW2, in Bosnia, and in Africa - massacres and mass rapes are frequent, not to mention frequently encouraged.

Race, of course, has nothing to do with it. Individual psychology and culturally ingrained attitudes toward the enemy are decisive.

> where a clearly morally wrongful (illegal or otherwise by US/NATO standards) command is given...would he do as his comrade does, follow the order to do something terrible?

In wartime it isn't always clear what's wrongful and what isn't, and there are, of course, levels of wrongfulness. The "average" American soldier would react like the "average" NATO soldier, but perhaps not like the "average" Bosnian guerrilla. In the heat of battle, some technically wrongful orders are almost certain to be obeyed by anybody if it looks like a matter of kill-or-be-killed. It depends on the individual.

It is very difficult for the average person to imagine what the heat of battle, or the expectation of ambush, can do to one's judgment. Moral dilemmas arise that would ordinarily be impossible in civilian life.

Of course, if a soldier feels pretty sure that if he doesn't follow a grossly wrongful order he himself will be tortured, or killed, and his family made to suffer further (a realistic fear in some places), he is likely to follow the order and be haunted by it forever,
he's likely to follow the order.

> 1970 isn't that long ago. Would...their counterparts today, do the same thing now?

Not all the troops fired. Apparently only about half of the Guardsmen fired - perhaps a low percentage in response to a direct order, especially when others were firing. (Was their decision not to fire conscious or unconscious? Morally aware or just the result of fear and indecision? What if they'd simply heard no order?)

Presumably something similar would happen today, though today they would probably be shooting rubber bullets - which would undoubtedly mean more soldiers firing and possibly more injuries.

But who knows? (It is less likely than it might seem that a command was even given: the facts, as investigated in court, are inconclusive.)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 03 May 12 - 10:59 AM

Lot's I agree with in your last post, but:

"at least in American and, I imagine, NATO forces."

That's quite a big caveat, particularly if -as you reason later in your post- we are to consider the the heroism or otherwise of not armies en masse, but of individuals. Why would we wish to differentiate between US & NATO forces and other armies of the world?

I appreciate certain regulations may differ, perhaps making the potential for wrongful *orders* less likely than in some countries, but that doesn't mean to say the soldiers themselves, are made of any different stuff.

So let's place that US/NATO soldier within the framework of an army where particular regulations do not exist (maybe he's defected or simply relocated), are we to suppose that he or she might - by virtue of inborn racial characteristics - behave any differently to his non-US comrades where a clearly morally wrongful (illegal or otherwise by US/NATO standards) command is given? Or would he do as his comrade does, follow the order to do something terrible?

I was reminded today of the Kent State murders. 1970 USA the National Guard shot down and killed unarmed students protesting against the Cambodia War. Eye witness accounts contradict the claim that there was no order to shoot and state that the unit suddenly acted as one, kneeling and firing on the students in complete unison. 1970 isn't that long ago. Would those same men, or rather their counterparts today, do the same thing now? I don't think we have any reason to suppose that anything much has changed where soldiers following orders, legal or otherwise, morally right or wrong, is concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Megan L
Date: 03 May 12 - 10:52 AM

Boberts quote reminded me of something i wrote standing by the graves of Germen airmen int the war cemetery at Lyness.

SOME MOTHERS SON

When all the talking's over
and the fighting has begun
your enemy or comrade
is still some mothers son.

Whatever it is they tell you
To make you believe instead
It is her son your killing
When you put a bullet in his head

Regardless who does the dying
Whose body falls to earth
A mothers heart is breaking
Till she takes her final breath.

Whether fighting for your country
your god or for the gold
some mothers eyes are crying
for the son she cannot hold

From Agincourt to Arnehm
Always answering the call
A soldier is a soldier
But a mothers son does fall

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Bobert
Date: 03 May 12 - 10:35 AM

Like they say, "One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 03 May 12 - 09:31 AM

Please re-read carefully:

>And while "orders to do wrong" are undoubtedly given and obeyed, one may presume, perhaps, on the basis of regulations and ordinary judgment, that they are only a small fraction of all orders given *in comparable circumstances,* at least in American and, I imagine, NATO forces.

Note the emphasis. The point is that even in the set of "comparable circumstances" (treatment of prisoners or enemy civilians, etc., etc.) it is likely that relatively few "orders to do wrong" are issued.

Back to the major issue. In my view whole "armies" cannot be "heroic" in the usual sense of the word (even if the default government description of armies of the Communist world has always been "the heroic People's Army of [fill in blank].")

Actions can be heroic, and people who perform such actions are heroes - at the time. Human nature being what it is, they can be non-heroes and even villains at other times. Look at Oskar Schindler.

To define someone as a "hero" is to say that their heroic action(s) notably outweigh their innumerable failings.


>Equally, the axis soldiers and the allied soldiers in WWII were (generally) both of the view that their actions were right.

True, but which of their countless actions were truly heroic? When an SS trooper risked his life to save his comrades on the Eastern Front, was he a hero? Or did he merely do something heroic that was absurdly insignificant in the broader picture? (It wouldn't have been absurd to the men he'd saved.)

As Richard syas, the lionizers' perspective makes a difference. The British Army and pacifists alike both endorsed the heroic actions of Captain Siegfried Sassoon, but they were different heroic actions and very different forms of heroism.

In America, John Brown and his sons murdered and mutilated five unarmed pro-slavery men in Kansas in 1856. Three years later, they seized a government arsenal in an attempt to incite a slave rebellion throughout the South. John Brown: mostly hero or mostly psycho? Are the labels even meaningful in a case like this? (He was definitely not a mercenary.)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 03 May 12 - 06:52 AM

A pertinent point for your consideration CS, might be that those mercenary non heroes you scorn are the sole reason why you are able to raise this discussion without any concern about official consequences, since they, or men very like them bought you free speech with their lives.

Just a thought!

Don T.

I've already responded to those who have made that point -including yourself previously Don - three or four times now.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 May 12 - 05:07 AM

As I said, preparedness to die is not a useful distinction. Equally, the axis soldiers and the allied soldiers in WWII were (generally) both of the view that their actions were right.


I think, Lighter, you are confused. I did not say that the majority of orders were wrong. Merely that the majority of those that were wrong are obeyed - for the reasons given by inter alia 999.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 May 12 - 08:06 PM

A pertinent point for your consideration CS, might be that those mercenary non heroes you scorn are the sole reason why you are able to raise this discussion without any concern about official consequences, since they, or men very like them bought you free speech with their lives.

Just a thought!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 02 May 12 - 03:58 PM

Just wondering if Little Hawk cared to continue to contribute to the thread?

He offered an excellent extensive post at the start of the thread. It would be good to see more comments from him specifically pertinent to ongoing discussion..

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 02 May 12 - 03:22 PM

Sorry, from reviewing the thread I don't know whether Teribus considered the orders he refused to be Morally wrong, but I understand he considered the orders Legally wrong. Either way, as has been said, I believe it takes impressive courage for a soldier to refuse an order.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 02 May 12 - 03:07 PM

"all these interesting discussions have little to do with the question "heroes or mercenaries?" or, for that matter, whether a soldier can be both or neither."

I don't know. I think they are all very relevant. Including the very interesting distinctions you have raised regarding "legal" and "moral" rightness and wrongness, for which I might return to the linked piece from Indymedia with which I initiated this "heroes or mercenaries" discussion:

"The only heroic thing that armies have done in history is to defend each other against danger in the theatre of war, to refuse the senseless orders of their political masters, to refuse to occupy their own or another's country, to refuse to act as scabs against striking workers, and to refuse to carry arms or use force against their own people."

Personally, I would be inclined to agree with such a statement. As such Terribus I think probably acted in a strongly moral fashion -even possibly heroic, though I do not know the precise circumstances- when refusing to follow orders he considered to be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 02 May 12 - 08:33 AM

>in reality, the vast majority of orders to do wrong are obeyed


If you're talking about the United States (and perhaps you're not) this sounds like a conveniently glib assumption. How do you know? One could equally assume that most such orders would be rescinded after their illegality was pointed out.

And while "orders to do wrong" are undoubtedly given and obeyed, one may presume, perhaps, on the basis of regulations and ordinary judgment, that they are only a small fraction of all orders given in comparable circumstances, at least in American and, I imagine, NATO forces.

But does that lead to any comprehensive conclusion? Some people in command (just like bosses in civil life) really are grossly incompetent, unstable, sadistic, or have very poor judgment, particularly under stress. But only some.

The "only following orders" defense at Nuremberg was morally contemptible but not legally absurd. Any order issued against a designated "enemy of the Reich," soldier or civilian, was automatically considered "legal." The Nuremberg decisions ratified the concept that civilized standards trump national edicts.

And of course those standards are imperfect and imperfectly observed.

Anyhow, all these interesting discussions have little to do with the question "heroes or mercenaries?" or, for that matter, whether a soldier can be both or neither.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 02 May 12 - 03:46 AM

Clarification:

"Let's return to WWII to illustrate Richard's point as quoted above."

Good post 999 btw.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 02 May 12 - 03:44 AM

"in reality, the vast majority of orders to do wrong are obeyed (and always have been obeyed). "

Indeed. And as it has been already invoked a number of times by those angry with the initial proposition that 'soldiers are not heroes, but mercenaries', let's return to WWII to illustrate that very point.

RB has been posting consistently rational, non-emotive, non-personal and pertinent points throughout this thread so far as I can tell.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 02 May 12 - 02:12 AM

"Allan, the day after 9-11 it was obvious to anyone with a brain that we were going into Iraq." Well I don't think it necessarily looked that way in the UK. Iraq and Saddam were not responsible for 9-11 and that was never used as an excuse. It was myself who mentioned the weapons of mass destruction reason given in the UK for going into Iraq two years later. This is all by the by and irrelevant. What I was pointing out was the assertion that those voters who voted Labour in (ie Blair's party) were to blame for his going into Iraq. Again the said election was long before the Iraq invasion, before the Afghanistan invasion, and even before the attack on the Twin Towers itself. Whether we were going to invade Iraq or not simply wasn't an issue in the said election. No-one can look into the future like that.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 01 May 12 - 11:28 PM

That was me.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST
Date: 01 May 12 - 11:05 PM

Mrrzy: that 'scene' will remain in my memory forever. He pushed her out the water and then he was gone. I have wondered ever since--well, I'm not sure what I wondered, but I always hoped I'd have the nuts to do what he did.

Don, my friend:

"""Teribus stated a fact, and he refused an illegal order. It ain't always black and white.""

There are times Richard, when I find it difficult to reconcile your posts with the kind of analytical thought one might expect from a man with extensive legal knowledge."

I said the 'Teribus stated a fact . . .' sentence.

Teribus and I have been friends for years now, just have you and I.

Richard is also a friend. A good one, socialist or not.

The problem here is ideology, not rhetoric. This will never resolve itself if what we do is argue and not discuss. The restatement of our specific beliefs simply restates the beliefs, it does not elucidate.

I trust things are good, DT.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 May 12 - 10:22 PM

Sure there are heroes - look at footage of that flight that hit the bridge in winter DC, and the dud who went in to save the stew. Wow.

Also, josepp, whom *did* you mean when asking whom *I* meant?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 May 12 - 10:12 PM

It is precisely because, as 999 says, it takes "serious cojones" (or, alternatively, stupidity) to refuse to obey an order that, in reality, the vast majority of orders to do wrong are obeyed (and always have been obeyed). I can't believe that this point needs re-stating. It's so obvious. The military structure is based on orders and the hierarchy of command not on independent thought or conscience.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 May 12 - 05:52 PM

""Teribus stated a fact, and he refused an illegal order. It ain't always black and white.""

There are times Richard, when I find it difficult to reconcile your posts with the kind of analytical thought one might expect from a man with extensive legal knowledge.

What Teribus didn't say (probably because he would have no official knowledge of it), is that it is virtually certain that the enquiries which found in his favour on the illegal orders, would have filed an adverse report on the officers issuing those orders, resulting in, at the very least, a severe reprimand, and probably a lot more serious punishment depending on the exact nature of the orders and the likely consequences thereof.

They would have been far too busy digging their careers out of the shit to give T a very hard time.

I can hardly believe that this thought had apparently completely escaped you.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 01 May 12 - 01:29 PM

Allan, the day after 9-11 it was obvious to anyone with a brain that we were going into Iraq. We certainly knew we were going in well before 2003. It's not like the invasion was a surprise. Blair could have refused to help. He chose not to. As another British poster on this thread told me (belying your claim that the voters are not responsible), everyone thought Saddam had WMD that could be aimed at the West in 45 minutes. And people believed that because Bush and Blair trumpeted the lie to anyone foolish enough to listen. It's plainly obvious the voters share the blame because they reelected Blair in 2005. By that time, what excuse could they offer? Clearly, they still favored the war or at the very least din't regard is to be as big a deal as certain domestic issues that they favored Blair on.

And that's fine as long as they aren't turning around and complaining the the military missions that were run under him--the repercussions of which are still being felt and will for some time. I didn't vote the Bush--couldn't stand him--but as an American I take the blame for my country electing this turd and everything that was done by him. It amazes the collousness of liberals I've gotten into violent arguments with when they refuse to take any blame for what happened in Iraq. The closest I ever came in my life to punching a woman.

You tell that to the Iraqis who had to live through that hell when one asks you what your country is going to do to make up for what it did to them: "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him." Jesus fuck.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 01 May 12 - 01:13 PM

Had I been wrong Richard I would have paid the price for it - that is commonly understood as accepting the consequences of your actions - in otherwords taking personal responsiblity for the choices you make - an anthema to a "socialist" I know, but if you have accepted the position you take the flak that goes with it.

As to how I got on with those who pressed me to follow the order I thought illegal after the event? Things went on as normal on the surface, I let it be known what I "wanted" to do next and lo and behold it happened.

Did I enjoy the enquiries? Well yes as a matter of fact I did, primarily because I knew I was right. I knew with 100% certainty the outcome before it came to any investigation.

Within the British Armed Forces very, very few illegal orders are ever given. I say that because I am aware of the training given whereas you are completely unaware of it. I have lived in that environment - you have not.

Your training and life experience is associated with the law and the law is governed by "evidence" (For which there are clear rules) and "precedent" (For which there are documented examples) - QRRN governed what I had to face and they backed me up to the hilt - I was never worried about the outcome.

Thanks 999 - I believe that you do have a better understanding than most.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 01 May 12 - 11:35 AM

Richard, imo you're better than that. Teribus stated a fact, and he refused an illegal order. It ain't always black and white. He's nearer reality and the real world than many who post here. Takes serious cajones to refuse an order. But no one ever said that being right was a release from being blamed.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 May 12 - 08:11 AM

But what if (could it possibly be so) you had been wrong? And how did you get on with the officers who gave you those orders after that? Did they still have authority over you? Did you enjoy the enquiries? Of all the illegal orders given, what proportion do you guess to be refused, and what do you think mostly happens to those who refuse to obey orders? Really, Teri, get with the real world.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 01 May 12 - 07:17 AM

"Now - soldiers (that's where we were, I think). Today they mostly choose to join a military. They know they may be ordered to kill people. Or, Don, to exercise their skills so that people are killed. They know that the reasons may turn out to be morally right, or they may turn out to be morally wrong, but unless they are prepared to stick their heads way above the parapet they know they won't have any choice but to do what they are told. And those who are "officer material" are those who are comfortable giving orders obedience to which depends mostly not on correctness but hierarchy. - Richard Bridge

1: "Today they mostly choose to join a military." - Very true and as such they apply themselves to learning their trade in as professional manner as possible. That trade is NOT simply killing people, their trade is work, move and survive as an effective unit in any sort of environment in such a manner that the task they have been set is accomplished.

2: "They know they may be ordered to kill people. Or, Don, to exercise their skills so that people are killed." - Again true and all such occasions will be covered by their "Rules of Engagement" - No soldier who serves with ISAF is deployed there having been told that his duty is to go out there and kill people.

3: "They know that the reasons may turn out to be morally right, or they may turn out to be morally wrong, but unless they are prepared to stick their heads way above the parapet they know they won't have any choice but to do what they are told." - In Afghanistan the norm dictated by "ROE" and exercise of "courageous restraint" means that ISAF can only return fire, they are not allowed to initiate contact, and are under orders to evade contact if loss of innocent civilian life is likely.

4: "And those who are "officer material" are those who are comfortable giving orders obedience to which depends mostly not on correctness but hierarchy." - Illegal orders are illegal and are not to be obeyed, the British Armed Forces are lectured and informed on this aspect of military life very extensively - I personally have exercised that right to refuse what I deemed to be an illegal order on two occasions, both incidents were subject to review and on both occasions I was found to be in the right.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Megan L
Date: 01 May 12 - 06:41 AM

My mother taught me there are no heros just people who do what has to be done.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 01 May 12 - 06:35 AM

'Preparedness to die' is definitely not an indication of heroism. Suicide bombers are only too willing to blow themselves up for their cause. They may be 'heroes' among their own kind, but not in the general sense, surely. I've always been rather sceptical of fervent, blind and all-consuming patriotism. One should always have an eye on the wider picture and the morals involved. It was questions like these that so fascinated me during my extra course on Moral Philosophy at Uni.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 May 12 - 06:13 AM

Preparedness to die is not a useful test in seeking to distinguish a hero from a mercenary. It is true of both.

Considering the motivations of US presidents and UK prime ministers doesn't help much either - both are not prepared to die, although they are prepared to send others to die, and with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya are prepared to interfere in the affairs of foreign sovereign states for varying reasons - sometimes expressedly altruistic but often venal.

Now - soldiers (that's where we were, I think). Today they mostly choose to join a military. They know they may be ordered to kill people. Or, Don, to exercise their skills so that people are killed. They know that the reasons may turn out to be morally right, or they may turn out to be morally wrong, but unless they are prepared to stick their heads way above the parapet they know they won't have any choice but to do what they are told. And those who are "officer material" are those who are comfortable giving orders obedience to which depends mostly not on correctness but hierarchy.

On the other hand, a military can turn out to be necessary.

But "My country, right or wrong" is always morally wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 01 May 12 - 06:00 AM

"That is incorrect. From the time Bush won election he wanted to go into Iraq. Here's what Paul O'Neill recalls:"

That is a complete red herring though! I was talking about the Labour victory in the UK election of June 2001 which ushered in the second Blair administration which took the UK to war in Iraq - not George Bush! The said party and its leader did not stand on a platform of Britain invading Iraq. Hence British voters did not vote fot that action to be taken. The said election was two years prior to the Iraq invasion. In fact it was before even the Afghanistan invasion and even before the attack on the Twin Towers.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 May 12 - 05:57 AM

""////I do not support our troops and haven't since they ended the draft.////""

This is arguably the single most inane statement in this thread (and that's quite an achievement).

We don't have a draft now because low grade conscripts are no longer of use in a modern army. The old days of moulding young layabouts into cannon fodder are gone, and will never return except in a future global bust-up.

Our current forces are intelligent, professional and highly trained and any one of them is worth ten conscripts in battle.

It is plain dumb to believe that they are simply trained killers, especially as a large part of their training is devoted to avoiding unnecessary killing, something which is improving daily.

One thing that nobody seems willing to acknowledge is the fact that they not only contract to fight, and where necessary to kill for their country, but, also if necessary, to DIE for their country, and for all of them that is a very real possibility.

IMHO anyone who hasn't the courage or tenacity to do likewise, has no right to disrespect those who do.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 01 May 12 - 01:19 AM

From the time Bush won election he wanted to go into Iraq. Here's what Paul O'Neill recalls:

And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

Of course what Suskind contends on Day one, is complete and utter nonsense. Regime change in Iraq by "Day One" had already been adopted as official US Foreign Policy almost two and a half years before during the summer of 1998, during the Presidency of Bill Clinton.

Those at the head of the US Intelligence and Security Agencies basically remained the same, it was they who in 1997 and 1998 advised the President of the potential threat from an Iraq under Saddam who refused to comply with UNSCR 687:

"So first, let's just take a step back and consider why meeting the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is important to our security in the new era we are entering.

This is a time of tremendous promise for America. The superpower confrontation has ended; on every continent democracy is securing for more and more people the basic freedoms we Americans have come to take for granted. Bit by bit the information age is chipping away at the barriers -- economic, political and social -- that once kept people locked in and freedom and prosperity locked out.

But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in this room know very well that this is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas.

And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us. - Bill Clinton to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff 17 February 1998

The same people advised George W. Bush when asked to evaluate the greatest threat to the United States of America AFTER Al-Qaeda had illustrated how vulnerable large centres of population were to asymmetric attack. In the collective view of the US Intelligence and Security Agencies the threat had not changed one iota from their opinion given in 1998 and that is how THEY briefed the new President BEFORE he was inaugurated, Clinton had pushed it to the back burner for the final months of his second term, leaving it to the United Nations. Bush took it more seriously as there were already mutterings about having sanctions lifted. After 9/11 then the matter had to resolved and both Bush and Blair tried the UN Security Council first. It would not have mattered who had won the 2000 Presidential Election the advice and recommedations would have remained the same. The Northern Alliance would have been assisted in Afghanistan to rid the country of the Taliban Government and their Al-Qaeda "Guests" and Iraq forced to comply with UNSCR 687 within a limited time-frame - there would be no letting UNMOVIC's inspection just drift on as it's predecessor organisation UNSCOM's had been allowed to. The choice with regard to war was Saddam's and his alone. In both instances action in both Afghanistan and in Iraq was correct thing to do and the right thing to do and the soldiers who participated were most certainly not mecenaries and to accuse them of being such is a baseless and unwarranted insult.

Oh go back to Clinton's speech - pick up on the definition and origin of term "The Axis of Evil"??

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 30 Apr 12 - 06:28 PM

/////The Blair govt that actually joined the US in the war won the second landslide election in 2001 a full two years prior to the said invasion. They did not stand on a platform of going to war with Iraq hence voters can not in any way be blamed. That is too retrospective.////

That is incorrect. From the time Bush won election he wanted to go into Iraq. Here's what Paul O'Neill recalls:

And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-592330.html

But Blair, who loudly voiced undying support and loyalty to Geroge Bush didn't know about any of this.


///Anyway we don't have presidential elections. You talk about if you voted for Blair! Only a few voters in a County Durham constituency actually voted for Blair.////

Did he not win election again in 2001 AND again 2005--well after the diasaster in Iraq was common knowledge? Is he not the longest serving prime minister as well as the youngest and the only one in the Labour party to have 3 consecutive victories in the general elections?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 30 Apr 12 - 06:13 PM

///What I said was that it would have been a better idea to go in to stop all massacres, rather than only stepping in to yugoslavia, where the people being massacred were white, and ignoring all the other genocides, where the victims were "of color"///

If the US went into Rwanda, we'd still be there and we'd have defoliated that jungle to a wasteland. In the long run, they were way better off without us.


////(I don't think we had any economic reason to go into Yugoslavia)///.

We get defense contracts from Croatia. I should know, I work on them.

///I don't think we should wage war for economic benefits anyway.////

I didn't say that.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,Mrr, back to josepp
Date: 30 Apr 12 - 05:55 PM

About the draft: I would support drafted people who are stuck doing war stuff. I do not support people who volunteer for war.

About the Bosnian v. other genocides:

//So we're not going to look at economic benefits as well as winnability in regards to where we go? We're just going to march into any quagmire as long as the combatants aren't white??? Maybe you explained that wrong and would like to try again because that was a load of shit./// What I said was that it would have been a better idea to go in to stop all massacres, rather than only stepping in to yugoslavia, where the people being massacred were white, and ignoring all the other genocides, where the victims were "of color" (I don't think we had any economic reason to go into Yugoslavia).

I don't think we should wage war for economic benefits anyway.


Your question about to whom am I referring, which comes after this para of mine repeated here /////What we're doing in the middle east is a crime, and that comes from someone whose (pacifist and folk-singing) father was killed back in the 80's when terrorists were slaughtering americans wholesale overseas and nobody in the states seemed to notice or care. We thought the 80's were the decade of anti-american terrorism till it kept going in the 90's. 9-11 was the first here, sure, but hardly the first, and none of it justifies anything we've done in theoretical retaliation. Not In My Name. I don't want them serving and I thank those who keep out of it, not those who go in.///// not sure to whom YOU are referring. Did you mean my dad? He was Albert N. Votaw, USAID.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 30 Apr 12 - 03:03 PM

"Well, you can rationalize any way you like if it makes you feel better but the truth is that if you voted for him you helped put your troops in that country"

No doesn't stack up. The Blair govt that actually joined the US in the war won the second landslide election in 2001 a full two years prior to the said invasion. They did not stand on a platform of going to war with Iraq hence voters can not in any way be blamed. That is too retrospective. Anyway we don't have presidential elections. You talk about if you voted for Blair! Only a few voters in a County Durham constituency actually voted for Blair. Personally I don't need to try and feel better anyway as I voted SNP and they were consistently against the war and their leader was very outspoken about it. Blair by use of the royal perogative had the power to take Britain to war without consulting parliament but he chose to do so and the only people who voted for the war were the actual members of the parliament itself. They voted for it based on incorrect facts. Not disputing that.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 30 Apr 12 - 02:32 PM

Because they need work and if they didn't there'd be a draft because you have to have a military.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Tunesmith
Date: 30 Apr 12 - 02:16 PM

josepp: Yes, exactly! And, why, knowing all that about politicians, would anyone be willing to join up!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 30 Apr 12 - 01:27 PM

////So it is not quite as clear cut as if you voted for Blair you are responsible.////

Well, you can rationalize any way you like if it makes you feel better but the truth is that if you voted for him you helped put your troops in that country. And it doesn't matter what you believed about Saddam--BLAIR KNEW the case against him was bullshit--he HAD to know. He chose to go along with it.

My point is, it is pointless to try and rationalize with a "how could I know what he was going to do?" while criticizing the military for being there. Were they supposed to be psychic? They had the same info you did and didn't have an option to refuse to go unlike the civilians who were ultimately responsible for sending them there. There's a lot of self-righteous hypocrisy going on on this thread and it's all far left liberal rubbish.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 12 - 12:26 PM

it is pointed out that 92% of the Afghan people never heard of the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

Immaterial the events of 11th September, 2001 have got nothing to do with the role and presence of ISAF troops in Afghanistan.

If you doubt that then do not please take issue with me for stating that instead read and take it up with the United Nations:

The Bonn Agreement

And

ISAF Mission Statement

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Tunesmith
Date: 30 Apr 12 - 11:30 AM

And, let's not forget that the Russians went in to Afghanistan( they would say - like the West - invited in) because of the rise of extremist muslim factions.
But, of course, the USA undermined their efforts by supporting those tribal characters in the hills ( NOT the Taliban, you understand!).
Imagine, if now, the Russians decided to supply the Taliban with weapons.
What would we make of that!
No wonder the Russians don't trust the Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 30 Apr 12 - 10:00 AM

"The war going on in their country makes no sense (it never did to me, either, and I do know about 9/11)."


SRS: I was pleased to read that post. Please answer one question, just one: why did Building 7 come down?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 30 Apr 12 - 06:26 AM

"If you voted for Tony Blair--like it or not--YOU are part of the reason Britain went into Iraq alongside America."

Many people voted for Blair but didn't support the subsequent invasion of Iraq. Many people initially supported the invasion of Iraq because they were given false information at the time. The British people were told that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and it was intimated that they could be deployed against us at 45 minutes notice. Or something like that from memory. That is the reason the British went in and of course it was all found to be incorrect information. So it is not quite as clear cut as if you voted for Blair you are responsible. The other parties basically supported the invasion because they too believed the info.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 10:38 PM

I'll jump in at the bottom with only skimming the thread to point out this article from late 2010, in which it is pointed out that 92% of the Afghan people never heard of the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/19/think-tank-afghans-dont-know-911/

The war going on in their country makes no sense (it never did to me, either, and I do know about 9/11). The Taliban and rebel war lords, etc., are freedom fighters, fighting against an invader. And that would be us.

Time to get out of there. There is no winning a war in Afghanistan. Many people have learned that the hard way in the past and Bush should never have gone there. Since he started that second senseless stupid war in Iraq, Obama has been busy winding down this stuff. But he should have gotten out of the Big A before now.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 07:35 PM

100

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 07:32 PM

I think some people here might recall an incident in Uganda at Entebbe Airport in 1975(?). Negotiation didn't get the hostages released.

I think some people here might recall a hostage situation at the Embassy in London, 1980. Negotiation didn't get the hostages released.

I think some people here might recall the invasion of Kuwait (1982) by Iraqi forces. Their treatment of Kuwait citizens was deplorable. Negotiation didn't get the hostages--that is the whole population--released.

I think some people here might recall a situation in Rwanda in 1994. There are 20,000 people alive today because a general and his troops followed their hearts and skirted their orders.

Yes, soldiers are for the most part trained to fight, and part of fighting is killing, although it's tactically better to wound (thus taking a rescuer or two out of the battle). My view is this: I truly wish we lived in a world where armies and weapons didn't exist. But armies and weapons are a part of the way we negotiate when the more peaceful methods fail. I don't buy into hero talk, so in that regard I agree with the OP. Thereafter it becomes a different story.

And Josepp, please don't bother. I sat shiva for you two days ago.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,1664
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 06:41 PM

"Right" in his psyche, "wrong" by the psyche of the opposing nation.

Which suggests that the concepts of "right" and "wrong" and 'relative' and depend on your background etc...

Which suggests that your views on the topic might be "wrong."

Same with mine.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 06:34 PM

The necessity for a military does not affect whether they are virtuous.

Since (commonly) each of two opposing sides thinks they are "right" the voluntary soldier must logically appreciate that he may be compelled to do wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: GUEST,1664
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 06:23 PM

"But Richard has hit the detonator. God On Oour Side, Gott Mit Uns, Jihad. What would YOU do if your country was taken over by foreigners with endless resources? "

Or rather:
What would YOU do if your country was taken over by deeply conservative, theocratic fascists who impose a strict regime on your country and make it officially the most dangerous country on earth (as it was from the year 2001.)

The Taliban were about as welcome as a melanoma to the people of Afghanistan - conservative evaluations estime that OVER A MILLION PEOPLE FLED AFGHANISTAN WHEN THE TALIBAN FIRST SEIZED POWER IN 2001!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you have forgotten about the Taliban attrocities,then 5 minutes on google may help you.

Just last week their ilk poisened all the pupils at a girls school in Takhar.

42 nations have troops posted in Afghanistan, are they all wrong and on some imperialist crusade?


Please bare this in mind when you view the Taliban as some sort of brave defenders of the people!!!

all the best

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 06:05 PM

More importantly, if your country were being invaded what would your response be?

Do you want to doff your cap, print "WELCOME" across your chest, and lie down to be walked over.

Because, no matter what country you inhabit, that would be the only choice for all you soldier haters, if your country did not have a properly trained standing army.

When the invader is marching unopposed up Dover High Street, it'll be a bit too late to be saying "Oo'er, I've changed me mind".

Of course, if we do have a standing army, you'll still be able to let them know how much you appreciate them, by calling them "Killer", "Mercenary", or any other of the charming pejoratives so beloved of the intellectually challenged.

Bottom line,...like the Police Force, you may not like them, but you would be a total damn fool to get rid of them.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Heroes' or Mercenaries?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 04:24 PM

Megan: my good friend's grandfather served briefly aged 16 or 17 in the army at the time of the boer woer, and signed up for WWI. On his 90th He seemed to have enjoyed it (Eileen told me it was probably a holiday compared with living with his wife). Might have been the same bullet that hit the one and missed the other.

But Richard has hit the detonator. God On Oour Side, Gott Mit Uns, Jihad. What would YOU do if your country was taken over by foreigners with endless resources?