Lovenotfear Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Whose killing? On whose behalf, PK? The UK Armed Forces act on behalf of the UK electorate. It's a democracy you know... It's a democracy!! haha, that cheered me up this evening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Whose killing? On whose behalf, PK? The UK Armed Forces act on behalf of the UK electorate. It's a democracy you know... It's a democracy!! haha, that cheered me up this evening Well it is. How else would you describe it? Do you think voting is rigged or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 8, 2009 Author Share Posted July 8, 2009 Well it is. How else would you describe it? Do you think voting is rigged or something? Democracy means people's government. Infer from that what you will. Some believe that democracy means participation in government, however limited. And liberal democracies are system's where the public have little participation. Others would not see it as a democracy as the public are not in fact governing themselves. Rather it is a small class of people who govern (make decisions) for the public and the latter just occasionally ratify WHO makes the decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 I have to fess up here that I just decided to teflon the obviously incoming shitstorm. But in fact what I posted is a truism. You may not like it, presumably because you didn't vote for it, but the UK Armed Forces, rather than being a servant of the Crown to whom they swear allegiance, are actually a servant of the government put there by the UK electorate. So if you want to know on whose behalf they serve then look no further than yourself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Whose killing? On whose behalf, PK? The UK Armed Forces act on behalf of the UK electorate. It's a democracy you know... That is how it is supposed to be understood. If you really believe that government exists to service the people and all the liberal thinking behind why and how government works then it makes sense. But it isn't how I see things work. And it doesn't matter whether the system we live in is CALLED a democracy. If a 'people's government' means nothing more than the citizen casting a vote then it is far from my ideo of democracy. Look democractic politics are complex - there are literally thousands of interest groups vying for attention - if you took anyones individual circumstances and tried to fit them into the choices on a ballot the fit by definition is a poor one. Trying to say how you serve the people is a very complex issue - heck LDV, you're an anarchist - how do you suggest the people are served! You can raise cliches like elective dictatorship etc, but that ignores the normative structures which do exist which stop politicians taking policies too far away from what is acceptable. Like it or not Maggie was supported, Blair was supported. People can cry about manipulation etc but I think the idea of a puralistic society with multiple elements contesting policy decisions is far far more realistic than any claims about elites, capitalist masters or whatever. The UK has robust, long standing mechanisms for allowing mutiple groups within society have their say. Obviously it aint perfect - Churchill's old saw that its the worst possible system apart from all the rest still has relevence. People disagree about policy - and they argue, lobby, demonstrate, agitate, buy and vote to get policies altered. Go and suggest changes if you can see such obvious problems with our democracry - you will have to gain support for those changes, but the idea that you will be ignored if you get 30 odd percent of the country agreeing with you is bull - at that level you won't be able to do what you want, but at the same time you wont be off the political radar - ask Mr Griffin - he's got something like less than 15% support. Our armed forces are under parliamentary control, and that is based on democratic normative accountability. If you can't accept that then this debate will never rise above student politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 8, 2009 Author Share Posted July 8, 2009 I have to fess up here that I just decided to teflon the obviously incoming shitstorm. But in fact what I posted is a truism. You may not like it, presumably because you didn't vote for it, but the UK Armed Forces, rather than being a servant of the Crown to whom they swear allegiance, are actually a servant of the government put there by the UK electorate. So if you want to know on whose behalf they serve then look no further than yourself... I know what you are saying P.K. The common language (propaganda or whatever) of the liberal democratic state argues that the Armed Forces are a servant of the government, which is the people. But like I said, the realities of life don't match up with these ideas. If the government does not serve the people (as I believe and think to be very much the case) then by extension the Armed Forces do not. It is a question of the role of the state and its purpose, we don't need to focus on the armed forces. The Armed Forces exist in this country for much the same reason as they do in most or even all other nations I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Sure, but if you think the government of the day does not serve the people then you can vote them out of office. However, once again, you should all be very grateful that there are still those who will put themselves in harm's way to do your killing for you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 8, 2009 Author Share Posted July 8, 2009 Sure, but if you think the government of the day does not serve the people then you can vote them out of office. However, once again, you should all be very grateful that there are still those who will put themselves in harm's way to do your killing for you... But P.K., it isn't about particular governments but about ALL governments. Doesn't matter who is in the government or what party they belong to, they serve themselves and go after satisfying their own interests before anyone else. They aren't doing the killing for me in reality but are doing it for whatever purposes the government sees fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 The Armed Forces exist in this country for much the same reason as they do in most or even all other nations I think. But the issue for me is compared to other countries is the UK's system closer or further away from spme measure of the ideal than the others. You will never ever ever get the ideal - to be blunt no one knows what it is! - but are our systems relatively better at ensuring accountablility, visibility etc. These are metrics which can be comparatively looked at reasonably objectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Doesn't matter who is in the government or what party they belong to, they serve themselves and go after satisfying their own interests before anyone else. They aren't doing the killing for me in reality but are doing it for whatever purposes the government sees fit. Vastly oversimplistic, the idea that politicians can satisfy their own interests before anyone elses is a massive exaggeration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 8, 2009 Author Share Posted July 8, 2009 You will never ever ever get the ideal - to be blunt no one knows what it is! - but are our systems relatively better at ensuring accountablility, visibility etc. When you say ideal, do you mean within the parameters of liberalism or simply an ideal socio-economic system? Just quite surprised you say that because you seem to have very clear ideas of what the ideal would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Huh - clear ideas of how to improve the worlds political and socio-economic position?! LDV - I try to always say the world faces huge, massive problems. Even in developed states there are serious issues, but when you include the situation for the bottom billion the problems are simply vast with few obvious solutions. Sure I believe people should be as free as possible to make their own choices - but the simple fact is people aren't free, but hedged in by circumstance - that means they have to in some way rank their needs. People are simply shit at doing that for all sorts of complex sociological and biological reasons. I'm in favour of communication, enabling people to make free choices, and reducing barriers to mobility but to be blunt who isn't! How you actually bring about those things - especially when circumstances mean many people have deeply constrained choices isn't really clear to me. I'm a liberal with a small L and highly sceptical of the states ability to transform society - I'm also internationalist - people from around the world have to come together to discuss policy solutions - the grand debate if you like. I find your anarchism a useless waste of time and effort - its rhetorically hide bound, simplistic, hasn't policy proscriptions, or even understands itself. I can at least engage with the liberal ideal, and find it more nuanced than marxist or socialist arguments. But this is too far off topic - Armed Forces day is I believe about the covenent between population, government and the services. That covenent is a vital part of our democracy and its been strained lately - I blame the government for most of this, though the services haven't filled themselves with glory in some of its more nasty actions towards prisoners and civilians. Blair was a sofa cabinet which drove its agenda too hard without enough accountability. Brown comes over as disfunctional continually making and then reversing his policy pronouncements - but at least he is now publically willing to look at how the Iraq War was driven. He was originally for a private enquiry, I'm glad he was forced into an about turn. Touch wood it will improve democratic accountability in such issues in the future and improve the covenent between soldier and citizen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Sure it is thought that there are checks and balances on our politicians, especially those who take us into conflict. Now I've always been certain that Thatcher and her appalling administration brought about the Falklands conflict. BUT, like Iraq, there was an inquiry, held behind closed doors, probably rightly despite the bleating of Cameron and the rest of his chinless wonders on the latest - just cheap politicating. IMHO an excellent article here on how Thatcher got away with it. A sample: ...there was much approved citing of Lord Franks's report on the Falklands war. In writing a history of that war, I studied Franks in some detail and interviewed him on his findings. He claimed, rightly in my view, that he was able to interview the participants in greater detail and with a more relaxed honesty than would have been conceivable had they been talking before press and public. This led to his report being, for its time, highly revelatory of the processes of diplomacy and intelligence. Yet Franks was called as much a whitewash as Hutton in 2004 on Iraq, despite the latter being conducted in public. Franks retorted that he was engaged in a semi-politicised exercise to decide whether the prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, was to blame for Argentina's seizure of the Falklands in 1982. Were he to say so she might be forced to resign – as she certainly thought. Franks felt it was not his job to bring down an elected leader. That consequence would have been incredible after Thatcher had won a military victory that had the nation rejoicing and the world looking on in admiration. It was not his job, said Franks, to stand proxy for democracy. So he cunningly wrote his own terms of reference to enable him to exonerate Thatcher in general but left enough material on the record to teach the government a lesson. Hutton and Butler did likewise on Iraq and, despite the devastating information they brought to light, were equally dismissed as whitewashers. But they were no different from Franks, outsiders wrongly expected to do a politician's job. However you're missing the point. It's not about political culpability or guilt. You sign up, you go where they send you, you do a nasty, dirty, dangerous job, your friends die, and you come home again (hopefully). Armed Forces Day is about showing some gratitude to those who are prepared to do it for whatever reason.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 9, 2009 Author Share Posted July 9, 2009 I'm in favour of communication, enabling people to make free choices, and reducing barriers to mobility but to be blunt who isn't! How you actually bring about those things - especially when circumstances mean many people have deeply constrained choices isn't really clear to me. My point of view is one where constraints should be removed where they have arose due to modern capitalism with the resulting position of modern worker in society. I find your anarchism a useless waste of time and effort - its rhetorically hide bound, simplistic, hasn't policy proscriptions, or even understands itself.I can at least engage with the liberal ideal, and find it more nuanced than marxist or socialist arguments. I think the same of your liberalism. Liberalism ideas and theories are advertised and discussed but the realities are quite different. When government is discussed in liberal theoretical terms it offers just as much a simplistic view of society as anarchism does. Nevertheless, the language of anarchism is very limited and dull. And Marxist ideas are just as nuanced. One need only looks at the various strains of anti-capitalist thought that have developed. But this is too far off topic - Armed Forces day is I believe about the covenent between population, government and the services. That covenent is a vital part of our democracy and its been strained lately - I blame the government for most of this, though the services haven't filled themselves with glory in some of its more nasty actions towards prisoners and civilians. Blair was a sofa cabinet which drove its agenda too hard without enough accountability. Brown comes over as disfunctional continually making and then reversing his policy pronouncements - but at least he is now publically willing to look at how the Iraq War was driven. He was originally for a private enquiry, I'm glad he was forced into an about turn. Touch wood it will improve democratic accountability in such issues in the future and improve the covenent between soldier and citizen. But that's all well and good from your perspective to see it coming 'off topic' because you do not accept the perspective of government as many others do which make the ultimate role of the government very relevant when assessing the role of the Armed Forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8147034.stm LDV these guys have paid the ultimate price, IMO they should be remembered whether or not it fits into your opinion of how the world should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.