Blair's Book

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Hmmm End of means I don't want to discuss it any more... However I agree with you and this is made 100% clear at the recruitment stage. Well it was back in the 80s when I applied for a 5 year SSC, as if we didn't already know ffs! However there's a very big difference between consenting to being put in harm's way and people nicely comfortable and safe back home saying the likes of 'if you join, you deserve all you get'.

Maybe not deserve all. But it the person's fault or responsibility for what they become involved in. They make a political decision to join the forces (unless you want to argue to many simply need a job) and they bear the consequences. Although it has to be borne in mind that such political motivations are put into people's heads early on and the stupid political ideas cause a public to applaud those who sign-up.

They don't DESERVE to be maimed or killed, however.

[Amadeus]

But that's exactly the route you have gone down. Or at least, attempted to.

And I happen to know that in real life you're far more disliked that slinkydevil, due to your obnoxious treatment of people and volatile temperament.*

*I made that up, see how easy it is?

 

I fully understand the point you are making, it is easy to make things up on anonymous forum for fun or mischief. That simply isn't the case in this instance, as this individual well knows, and no, I'm not going to go into detail partially out of respect for this individual's privacy, but also out of respect, and sympathy, for other parties who understand only too well what a 'bully' really is.

Well, I do know slinkydevil outside these sacred halls and he's not what I would call a bully by a long long mile.

 

You, on the other hand.....wanna tone it down a bit.

 

Thank you.

[censorship]

You, on the other hand.....wanna tone it down a bit.

Why? What have I done, what rule have I broken, or am I not allowed to form opinions of people?

[Alias]

Maybe not deserve all. But it the person's fault or responsibility for what they become involved in. They make a political decision to join the forces (unless you want to argue to many simply need a job) and they bear the consequences. Although it has to be borne in mind that such political motivations are put into people's heads early on and the stupid political ideas cause a public to applaud those who sign-up.

They don't DESERVE to be maimed or killed, however.

I don't think that's quite fair - they sign up with the possibility of being sent to a war, but with the expectation that any conflict will be legitimate and in defence of the UK or with a clear international mandate.

 

The war was not (according to the current government) legitimate, so is it that different then your employer asking you to do tasks beyond which your previous expectations have been, and for which your personal risk of injury will be vastly increased - e.g. breaching H&S regulations; but without the option to leave the situation and possibly the company.

 

Their job is highly hierarchical, and they are expected not to question anything from above them - as such how are they to make a case to the public (and so question the government) that they shouldn't be preparing to engage in a potentially unlawful and unremitting conflict? Yet if they don't make this case, the public bare less sympathy to them, and state the argument that 'it's part of your job'.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I don't think what you have explained is wrong in regard to recognising that people expect that the wars they fight in are legal and therefore just, but that's precisely my point. Such a political understanding is limited to that outlook.

 

The expectation that you refer to is predicated on the political opinion or belief that wars conducted by the British Armed Forces are ordinarily moral and rightful and are fought in the interests of Britain (in the sense of a concept of a national whole that includes the interests of the British people.) That makes the overall duties of the Armed Forces appear to be good. In fact more than that, the public understanding is that those people are doing something exceptionally good and the people undertaking it deserves a high opinion for that reason. (Not that I share that political understanding in the least nor have a high opinion of those who serve, they're than anyone else, some certainly worse.)

 

And going back to what I was saying, this political outlook fuelled by patriotism (and in some cases a recognition that such duties invoke adulation from the public) creates a good deal of motivation to join.

 

In that way, if people join the Armed Forces and are injured in ANY war then to a large degree it is their fault. They accepted the risks. They are responsible for their actions. The only mitigating factor being in all of this the misconception they have of what they the role is and who it benefits. This is a misconception shared by very many in the public - who think the role is about protecting freedoms and doing the right thing by Britain and the world. If people are brought up to think this and are applauded for being in the Forces under this political understanding then the responsibility for people joining the Forces cannot rest completely on the soldiers of those who serve.

 

Again, I think too much is made of the legal position of the Iraqi war. I think it completely skews our way of looking at British foreign policy. It makes the Afghanistan war look more rightful and purposeful when it is even less morally legitimate than the Iraq War.

[jimbms]

OK LDV let us assume that in your ideal world then people do not join the army, oh yes that has happened to some extent, the result in a time of war is people are conscripted so what is the view there is it their fault if they are injured? Should they refuse to be enlisted and in that way allow another to take their place thus it could be their fault if they are injured? Should we all do nothing and let a fascist or extremist nation take us over and cause as last time millions to be murdered? All this because people would not step forward for the freedom of others.

To quote James Baldwin, "If we know, then we must fight for your life as though it were our own…. For if they take you in the morning, they will be coming for us that night."

 

Martin Niemoller put it well in his famous poem,

 

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.

Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out.

Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.

And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

 

Sometimes there are people who are not selfish enough to back down but instead will lay down their lives so the cynical and ungrateful such as yourself are allowed to spread hatred and dissent with the freedom you can in a free society.

 

 

[La_Dolce_Vita]

OK LDV let us assume that in your ideal world then people do not join the army, oh yes that has happened to some extent, the result in a time of war is people are conscripted so what is the view there is it their fault if they are injured?

The result is not that people would be conscripted. This isn't the 40s. A very large number of people would not accept conscription. And it wouldn't be politically feasible given the political atmosphere of modern-day Britain.

 

Doing nothing about fascism and threats to the people of Britain is a different thing than criticising the role of the Armed Forces as they actually perform in the world. Please stop referring to WW2 all the time.

 

Sometimes there are people who are not selfish enough to back down but instead will lay down their lives so the cynical and ungrateful such as yourself are allowed to spread hatred and dissent with the freedom you can in a free society.

If they genuinely undertake the role solely to lay their lives down under the mistaken political understanding that it would be what they are doing then that is noble, but I do not believe that it is prime motivation for enlisting at all or even enters into it for many. And it is misguided. People don't join up simply prepared to die if their nation is attacked.

 

And exactly how are my comments examples of hatred? Just because I don't love them doesn't mean I hate them.

[pongo]

EX PM Blair's (presumably ghost written) memoirs are his pitch to history / the record. The book is his chance to put his side of the story. That would be the reason for the book. I doubt he cares about the money.

 

Donating his royalties to the British Legion helps to market the book, raise its profile etc. Not that the British Legion is not possibly a worth cause.

 

 

"First they came for the Communists ... Socialists ... Trade Unionists ... Jews

 

Rather unfortunately the British Legion has also accepted marketing donations from the BNP - the political heirs of the people who came for the communists, socialists, trade unionists and jews.

[P.K.]

Maybe not deserve all. But it the person's fault or responsibility for what they become involved in. They make a political decision to join the forces (unless you want to argue to many simply need a job) and they bear the consequences. Although it has to be borne in mind that such political motivations are put into people's heads early on and the stupid political ideas cause a public to applaud those who sign-up.

They don't DESERVE to be maimed or killed, however.

I don't think that's quite fair - they sign up with the possibility of being sent to a war, but with the expectation that any conflict will be legitimate and in defence of the UK or with a clear international mandate.

 

Wrong. Couldn't give a flying. Orders are orders...

 

From my Grauniad:

 

Financial sacrifice

 

Tony Blair

 

Now there's a tricky one. The former prime minister has pledged to give both his £4.6m advance and any future royalties from the sale of his memoir, A Journey, to the Royal British Legion, to mark "the enormous sacrifice [the armed forces] make for the security of our people and the world".

 

Various critics have appended phrases such as "in illegal wars that I like to start" to his explanation, accused him of trying to clear his conscience, restore his reputation and burnish his marketability. On the other hand – it's a socking great amount to the British Legion that he didn't have to give and who can surely put the money to good use. Whatever your opinion, one fact cannot be in doubt – in one of the Blairs' houses somewhere, Cherie is screaming into an expensive yet tasteless pillow in agony as the better part of £5m is ripped from her grasp.

 

Everyone focus on that, and cheer up...

[jimbms]

in one of the Blairs' houses somewhere, Cherie is screaming into an expensive yet tasteless pillow in agony as the better part of £5m is ripped from her grasp.

 

Everyone focus on that, and cheer up...

Strangly enough she who must be obeyed when she heard what he has done said "what a pillock, does he realise how many pairs of shoes I could have had for that"

[Terse]

The vast majority of his books will remain unsold.

They will eventually be recycled as toilet paper.

We will wipe our arses with it.

 

Everyone focus on that, and cheer up...

[gingerbiscuit]

Why don't one of you get off your fat arses and write a book and donate to the soldiers fund - maybe then you would be qualified to have an opinion!

 

Cheers guys

[ballaughbiker]

An eloquent post gingerb. I'm not sure why you should have to write a book and donate its proceeds just to have an opinion, please explain....

[gingerbiscuit]

Because why comment on what others are doing when you have not done it yourself. Too many armchair critics here methinks!

[Terse]

Great idea! (But do we have to lick Dubya's arse, falsify a load of information and send loads of people to an early grave first?)