[BBC News] Tour of thanks for Iraq soldiers

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I don't really see how the Covenant relates to support. There is no distinction between servicing one's nation and fighting for the government no matter what war it wants to enter or start because the idea of servicing one's nation is meaningless. In reality the armed forces only serve the government and not the nation

Well it may be me but didn't the nation vote in the government thus making them ultimately responsible for the government's actions, especially when they deploy the military?

 

Also unless you have served the concepts of duty, loyalty and comradeship will be very difficult to understand. Sure you can be told about them but you can never understand just how much they can mean unless you have experienced them.

 

Also I agree with Albert @ 18:55 pm 14/11/2008 signed - P.K.

 

To some extent you are right about responsibility in terms of the fact that the people of the nation live under the illusion that by voting they have control of the government and therefore the policies of the government are the responsibility of the public. But any person with any brain would know this to be complete rubbish. Although the public are duped into thinking that voting is crucial in truth they have absolutely no responsibility over what the government chooses to do. All voting does is to give permission for a particular group of the elite class (though to always, they could be working class but this changes upon being elected) to rule over the populace. But once the government is in power it can go to war if it thinks that it is best, but this is not entirely the responsibility of the public, as the public are simply there to watch what happens and be told what to do.

 

But I might be digressing a bit, why did you mention the fact of voting? Was in reference to the issue of support or serving the nation?

 

If it was serving the nation then it matters little whether the public can vote or not because voting is a pointless exercise. Those who vote do hold some responsibility for giving sanction to the system and give sanction to being ruled by a small group of men (and relatively recently, women), that is true. But the elite does not serve the people. The people serve the elite in our current political system. This elite have different interests than the rest of the rest of the population and satisfy such interests with the use of the military. Of course you hear things about the military serving the nation, but if the government does not serve the people and people in power have different goals then the military cannot be there to serve the nation.

 

Loyalty is something I think almost everyone rexognises, it is certainly not something limited to the military. Duty is an interesting one. Now I know what it means and I think most people do as most people are subject to the unjustified higher authority of their employer who informs of what duties need to be done. But I think it might be better if you explained more about the idea of duty and loyalty. I can understand a man's belief that serving in the military is serving their nation, I recognise that were one to really believe it then this goal of serving the nation becomes a duty. And loyalty to the nation is very easy to understand, but such loyalty can only be given if you believe in the idea of nation.

[P.K.]

Voting isn't an illusion, it's real. If you don't like what they do in office then you don't vote for them again. It really is that simple hence the well worn but still true fact that in this country we don't vote a government in - we vote one out.

 

As to explaining the concepts of duty, loyalty and comradeship I've already told you that I think it would be too difficult for me to do it justice so I'm not going to try.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Voting isn't an illusion, it's real. If you don't like what they do in office then you don't vote for them again. It really is that simple hence the well worn but still true fact that in this country we don't vote a government in - we vote one out.

 

Voting is an illusion of choice and control. If you don't like what they do in office then you don't vote and different people come into government. But the assumption is that the new government could or would be capable of responding to the people and doing what the public want because of their policies. Though as I have said, once politicians take up power their situation radically alters unless they were already middle class, so there are just as likely to take decisions as they see fit but with their interests in mind.

The even greater illusion is control. Voting seems to be seen as something very important as it is where the citizen makes their political outlook known and it is where they can make A change. Though it is overlooked that voting is the only manner in which the citizen can really have any change over the personality make-up of their government, though such control when looking at the whole workings of the state machinery is minimal. You can change the faces in government or the 'flavour' of their policies, i.e. neoliberal, conservative, democratic socialist,...etc., but you will never find people who have the same interests.

Voting just a nod to someone to make decisions for you (under the idea that you cannot make them yourself) for the next few years, and your role is now to sit back and watch.

If voting is the only form of control we have over the decisionmaking process then the public have so little responsibility and control over the decisions of the state.

 

As to explaining the concepts of duty, loyalty and comradeship I've already told you that I think it would be too difficult for me to do it justice so I'm not going to try.

 

I think this is a little evasive. You could tell me why duty and loyalty are so important.

 

I assume when talking about loyalty and duty you are talking about a loyalty to one's nation and have a duty to your nation above your own interests. I think you would be wrong to say that only people in the armed forces recognise what such things mean. The public are not immune to hearing about such concepts and there are some forms of duty and loyalty which the state believes that citizens should have. You only need to switch on your television to hear soldiers talk about doing their duty to the U.S. etc. regardless of whatever campaign they are part of. And I wonder if this is where the meaningless idea of support comes in. If the soldier has pledged a duty to their nation (which in effect they get told what to do by the government in order to carry out the governments plans, which has nothing to do with serving the interests of all and sundry in the country), most of the general public thinks the government works for them and that all people in the nation have common interests relating to their nationality, by extension people easily conceive of the idea that the military serves their interests. I think it is easy to understand how they can recognise what nation is.

What I am saying, however, is that there is no separation between the work carried by the person in the armed forces and foreign policy. So even though someone may disagree with the foreign policy of their own country, they cannot say they support the soldier because they fight for their nation irrespective of what foreign policy is, because fighting for the nation IS in fact foreign policy.

 

Loyalty to one's nation is a very simply concept to grasp I think, what about such things as treason. I am a little puzzled at how you think the military man can conceive of such things yet the citizen does not. I can only think you mean that the citizen cannot understand the extent to which the soldier will be loyal to the nation, which in reality means the government.

[Sebrof]

LDV, usually I agree with you and generally I love your openess. I dont over this, my daughter is 'seeing' a boy in the army, hes only a kid, he joined the army (he is an engineer) because the employment prospects in the North of England are seriously bad. I had not considered this before, I always thought people joined the army because they wanted to be fighters. Anyone who risks their lives when they go to work is worthy of respect - just for doing their job. Fire fighters & soldiers are my personal 'huge admiration' for peoples

 

I think you will find that fire-fighters risk their lives rather less often than people suppose. However, they earn my sympathy for the nasty accidents they have to deal with. I would not enjoy having to cut badly injured people out of crashed cars, for instance.

 

S

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I think you will find that fire-fighters risk their lives rather less often than people suppose. However, they earn my sympathy for the nasty accidents they have to deal with. I would not enjoy having to cut badly injured people out of crashed cars, for instance.

 

S

 

It does sound gruesome. The same can be said about those in the forces when someone is dead or dying.

[Albert Tatlock]

As to explaining the concepts of duty, loyalty and comradeship I've already told you that I think it would be too difficult for me to do it justice so I'm not going to try.

Perhaps a start might be: 'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends'.

 

LDV - you need to have experienced the concept of that to understand it, but basically it revolves around a situation where you regularly place your life under the control and influence of others that you live with, make good friends with (sometimes for life with) and socialise with 24/7 - usually away from your own friends and family, which makes that bond all the more stronger. LDV, the fault in not understanding this, lies with you - it is a bond of understanding that you can see at every military funeral or commerative service, and has gone on for hundreds (if not thousands) of years in every nation.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV - you need to have experienced the concept of that to understand it, but basically it revolves around a situation where you regularly place your life under the control and influence of others that you live with, make good friends with (sometimes for life with) and socialise with 24/7 - usually away from your own friends and family, which makes that bond all the more stronger. LDV, the fault in not understanding this, lies with you - it is a bond of understanding that you can see at every military funeral or commerative service, and has gone on for hundreds (if not thousands) of years in every nation.

 

I think I do recognise and understand the concepts of duty and loyalty in this manner. Why do you think you need to experience it to understand it?

 

I probably should have responded to P.K. earlier post (the one before the last) by asking him how it is relevant to the matter of public support for the forces and in possibly refuiting that serving one's nation is meaningless (which I think I should have a different word, i.e. untrue).

[rallybug]

There is no distinction between servicing one's nation and fighting for the government no matter what war it wants to enter or start because the idea of servicing one's nation is meaningless.

 

I presume you mean 'serving', not 'servicing'

 

verb (serviced, servicing) 1 to subject (a vehicle, etc) to a periodic check. 2 said of a male animal: to mate with (a female).

 

I'm not sure on the fundamental difference, but a soldier's attestation is not to the United Kingdom:

 

"I (state your name), swear by Almighty God [or solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm] that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me."

 

In my somewhat simplistic reading, the oath implies that final command lies with the Crown, not the UK Government of the day. How much of a difference this makes compared to other nations - I don't know.

 

As in any job, there are naturally some who would not get the same level of respect as others (I grew up in a Navy town) on a day-to-day basis, but in general, the members of the various armed forces get my respect for doing a job that I would not choose to do myself - at 37-yo, there isn't much chance of me having to do such either, even were conscription to return as in the world wars. I disagreed with the RAF station commander who told all military personnel on the base to not wear uniform when off-base a couple years ago, as I think they should be able to wear uniform whenever they like without facing hassles from the general public (see, it's not only LDV who can live in a cloud cuckoo land ).

 

On the flip-side, I find the American idolisation of their military personnel somewhat strange and overblown. Also, the over-use of the term 'heroes', especially by the tabloid newspapers, detracts from true acts of heroism - luckily, the awarding of commendations and medals allows for truly heroic acts to be suitably rewarded (Johnson Beharry springs to mind). That, I think, is the difference between the generally understated respect shown by the British to their service personnel, compared to the hero worship shown by the Americans to their personnel - I'm not saying that either approach is wrong, just different.

 

I may return to these thoughts later...

[La_Dolce_Vita]

In my somewhat simplistic reading, the oath implies that final command lies with the Crown, not the UK Government of the day. How much of a difference this makes compared to other nations - I don't know.

 

Very little I would argue. It matters little what is in the oath because nationalism is the same country to country. In the eyes of the public the military is the BRITISH military and it fights for BRITAIN. And I would suppose the beliefs of those in the military are the same. The reality is quite different, but if you are a patriot then you believe such silly things.

 

I disagreed with the RAF station commander who told all military personnel on the base to not wear uniform when off-base a couple years ago, as I think they should be able to wear uniform whenever they like without facing hassles from the general public (see, it's not only LDV who can live in a cloud cuckoo land )

 

Why do you think they are getting hassle from the public? You may be jesting but by saying I am cloud cuckoo cloud you are implying that I am unaware of something, what is that?

 

Now I don't really like the idea of military personnel wearing their uniform when off base. I do not respect the military institution and do not believe in what the military fight for. There is absolutely no good reason for someone in the military to wear their uniform off-duty. Are these people posturing? Are they trying to separate themselves from the public in an arrogant manner? Or can they just not be bothered getting changed? It doesn't bother me that much but what DOES piss me off are politicians like Gordon Brown who state that it is desirable for military personnel to keep their uniforms on because the public should see the military more and convey respect.

 

On the flip-side, I find the American idolisation of their military personnel somewhat strange and overblown. Also, the over-use of the term 'heroes', especially by the tabloid newspapers, detracts from true acts of heroism - luckily, the awarding of commendations and medals allows for truly heroic acts to be suitably rewarded (Johnson Beharry springs to mind). That, I think, is the difference between the generally understated respect shown by the British to their service personnel, compared to the hero worship shown by the Americans to their personnel - I'm not saying that either approach is wrong, just different.

 

I may return to these thoughts later...

 

I don't know if it is strange and overblown. I think the different response is down to the extent of patriotism that the people have. I think that, unfortunately, in general the Americans are far more patriotic than the British but then I would also add that they are less bothered about displaying their patriotism, again this is unfortunate. You do get the impression that is the U.S.A. war on the rest of the world there would be a large amount of people patting the soldiers on the back and cheering the military. They are under the mistaken belief, in my opinion, that more than in Britain, no matter what the conflict the military is fighting for democracy, freedom, and for America. Although Americans have more freedoms than the British they think that they are free people and have a great political system. Those who believe all this are just taken in by the propaganda.

 

It isn't just in America that you have this idea of hero worship, I have been annoyed by enough newspaper articles talking about dead soldiers as heroes.

[rallybug]

Why do you think they are getting hassle from the public? You may be jesting but by saying I am cloud cuckoo cloud you are implying that I am unaware of something, what is that?

 

The 'cloud cuckoo land' comment was aimed at your wish for a world without nationalism, patriotism or any tribal feelings that have existed in humans since time immemorial.

[rallybug]

Now I don't really like the idea of military personnel wearing their uniform when off base. I do not respect the military institution and do not believe in what the military fight for. There is absolutely no good reason for someone in the military to wear their uniform off-duty. Are these people posturing? Are they trying to separate themselves from the public in an arrogant manner? Or can they just not be bothered getting changed? It doesn't bother me that much but what DOES piss me off are politicians like Gordon Brown who state that it is desirable for military personnel to keep their uniforms on because the public should see the military more and convey respect.

 

Why shouldn't they wear uniform off-duty? Should I have had a go at the Isle of Man Transport worker who was walking through Tesco doing his shopping tonight wearing his uniform, or the policeman going to start his shift? It's just a uniform, articles of clothing - the clothes would only cause offence to people who wish to be offended.

 

About 15 years ago I went to a wedding of a friend in my home town - the groom was a Chief Petty Officer in the Royal Navy and wore his No1 uniform, some of his male relatives were in the RUC and wore their uniforms for the church service, and very smart they all looked too. The relatives didn't wear their uniforms down for two reasons - the harassment that they might have received as members of the RUC, and that of course they would be crumpled. Four relatives of mine were in the police in the UK and each wore their best uniform for functions on occasion.

 

You might not agree with the various wars and actions that the British armed forces have taken part in over the centuries, but until such time as everybody loves everybody else, there will still be a need for the military to protect the citizens. If we didn't have professional armed forces, and someone did want to attack us, how long would we last? And if you don't like the military, then I trust you never fly by jet aircraft (engines developed for the military), use satellite TV (rockets developed by the military originally), go on the Steam Packet vessels (radar developed for the, you guessed it, military).

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The 'cloud cuckoo land' comment was aimed at your wish for a world without nationalism, patriotism or any tribal feelings that have existed in humans since time immemorial.

 

You are quite right about tribalism, community, clans, etc. But nationalism and patriotism are far more recent. Nationalism hasn't been around that long, arguably it can be said to have began around the end of the 18th century. It is tied to the development of the types of state that we have today. Prior to nationalism peoples ties were to their community and local area and not to a nation. I think patriotism and nationalism are very distasteful because they give the impression of a commonality of interest shared by all people who speak the same language or have close cultural similarities, this completely overlooks the commonality of workers and the oppressed across all nations.

[Sebrof]

Why do you think they are getting hassle from the public? You may be jesting but by saying I am cloud cuckoo cloud you are implying that I am unaware of something, what is that?

 

The 'cloud cuckoo land' comment was aimed at your wish for a world without nationalism, patriotism or any tribal feelings that have existed in humans since time immemorial.

 

I reckon all people are tribal. The difference lies in what tribe people think they belong to.

 

Here on the island, some people sneer at the Govags from Peel. They consider themselves to belong to a different, and better, tribe (though God only knows what it is).

 

Some people are rabidly British, and sneer at "Europeans". They forget, or never knew, that they are Europeans, too.

 

Some white people sneer at black people, forgetting that we all have a common ancestor.

 

At the top of the tree are those who consider themselves citizens of the universe.

 

If we can get everybody to think like them, it would be much harder to start wars.

 

S

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Why shouldn't they wear uniform off-duty? Should I have had a go at the Isle of Man Transport worker who was walking through Tesco doing his shopping tonight wearing his uniform, or the policeman going to start his shift? It's just a uniform, articles of clothing - the clothes would only cause offence to people who wish to be offended.

 

You might not agree with the various wars and actions that the British armed forces have taken part in over the centuries, but until such time as everybody loves everybody else, there will still be a need for the military to protect the citizens. If we didn't have professional armed forces, and someone did want to attack us, how long would we last? And if you don't like the military, then I trust you never fly by jet aircraft (engines developed for the military), use satellite TV (rockets developed by the military originally), go on the Steam Packet vessels (radar developed for the, you guessed it, military).

 

I have to ask again, why would they wear their uniform other than to head to their area of work and than look smart at a function, as I suppose the two examples are all right. But as much as possible I do not want to see representations of the state's wrongful use of force and power parading about in an air of apparent dignity and pride. The same goes for police, but a transport worker just represents a bus company. But if they people really want to wear their uniforms then go ahead but I do not see why they need to. I definitely do not agree with the attacks that have been made on members of the armed forces and nasty verbal abuse that has been hurled at them. If these soldiers feel a sense of pride specifically because they believe they are fighting on behalf of the citizens and fighting to protect them then they are brainwashed as every other patriotic and do not deserve ridicule.

 

I can think of few wars I do agree with. But the military is not there to protect citizens. As I have said earlier, the British military is there to conduct foreign policy, policy which is driven by the interests of the powerful and the few, and their interests are not the people's, so let's be clear about that. Any protection afforded to citizens is entirely incidental as an elite will wish to retain its power against attacks from another country whose elite have ambitions.

 

Given the structure of the international system with many different nation states all led by a small group of men (politicians and business people) there is a need for a military, because each elite wants to increase its control over resources and people that can oppose them. And in this system we depends on the military to an extent, because the threats from other elites is such that we have to deter their military forces and possible defend against them. But I don't the way things are, I want rid of these elites and the military forces they require.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I reckon all people are tribal.

At the top of the tree are those who consider themselves citizens of the universe.

 

If we can get everybody to think like them, it would be much harder to start wars.

 

I think you are right. We are all tribal, we are all social animals who depend on each other and recognise that we have far more to gain by cooperating with each other than with fighting each other.

 

It is not about becoming citizens of the universe. Forget the idea of citizen. For starters get rid of the State and all other foreign states which wage these wars. It isn't the people who began these conflicts. You only need to look at Britain's awful foreign policy to see that it isn't the populace who are driving it but a small group of politicians.