They died for your freedom

[harvey19]

I'm not just talking about being against war in general. I accept armed conflict is inevitable in resolving legitimate disputes. What I'm raising in this thread is the notion that we seem to apply the same mantras (regarding freedom, democracy, humanitarianism) to every conflict our leaders send us into, regardless of what we ourselves know about it.

 

My question to everyone is, how do we know for sure 99% of the conflicts we involve ourselves in are really about what our leaders say? Given that power is self serving, and going by what little trust we have in government over many other issues, why do we still cling to the idea that we fight for our freedom, protection and even resources for our people? Do we ever stop to consider all the special interests that benefit from war and how that may be justification enough to stimulate conflict? All it takes is a bit of selective funding by a private finance entity.

 

So it's not a case of being for or against war, it's more about blind patriotism and how that leads to the false justification for war. WE give our rulers the green light and perpetuate war through our naivety in that sense.

Your question seems to be are soldiers told honestly why they are going to war.

Whether they are told the truth or not I think the majority of soldiers will believe they are involved in a just cause, and that applies to both sides in the conflict.

[Kaimani]

I'm not just talking about being against war in general. I accept armed conflict is inevitable in resolving legitimate disputes. What I'm raising in this thread is the notion that we seem to apply the same mantras (regarding freedom, democracy, humanitarianism) to every conflict our leaders send us into, regardless of what we ourselves know about it.

 

My question to everyone is, how do we know for sure 99% of the conflicts we involve ourselves in are really about what our leaders say? Given that power is self serving, and going by what little trust we have in government over many other issues, why do we still cling to the idea that we fight for our freedom, protection and even resources for our people? Do we ever stop to consider all the special interests that benefit from war and how that may be justification enough to stimulate conflict? All it takes is a bit of selective funding by a private finance entity.

 

So it's not a case of being for or against war, it's more about blind patriotism and how that leads to the false justification for war. WE give our rulers the green light and perpetuate war through our naivety in that sense.

 

i hear you on that. the idea of, to quote the Americans 'our interests and way of life' as reasons for preemptive war leave me cold. of course, many nations use versions of the same.

'interests' is such a vague and disconcerting term you can include anything. the same with 'way of life'.

 

and, with the war industry being, invariably, one of the biggest all over the world it makes sense, business wise, to keep it going. outside of the last world war it's very hard to think of a conflict fought, nation on nation, for 'honorable' reasons, especially where 'we' are concerned.

 

wars have even been used as campaign tools, not to mention as commerce, expansion etc.

 

i would say it's more respectful to the families of the fallen to say 'we lied, your child/father/lover/friend etc died for oil, votes, money, hate...' rather than say 'he was a hero who died for our freedom and way of life.'

[Kaimani]

Your question seems to be are soldiers told honestly why they are going to war.

Whether they are told the truth or not I think the majority of soldiers will believe they are involved in a just cause, and that applies to both sides in the conflict.

 

you're right. most soldiers, no matter what their insides say, have to believe they're fighting for a just cause. otherwise you just couldn't live with yourself afterward. and politicians know that. they depend on that to cover up atrocities and such.

 

it'd be interesting to see how many would sing up today if the government made a very logical argument for war with, say, Saudi Arabia for economic purposes.

[harvey19]

you're right. most soldiers, no matter what their insides say, have to believe they're fighting for a just cause. otherwise you just couldn't live with yourself afterward. and politicians know that. they depend on that to cover up atrocities and such.

 

it'd be interesting to see how many would sing up today if the government made a very logical argument for war with, say, Saudi Arabia for economic purposes.

Is anyone objecting to us supplying an air force capability to the Libyan anti government force ?

[epiphany]

Is anyone objecting to us supplying an air force capability to the Libyan anti government force ?

 

I'm not, but I won't pretend for one minute I know the full detail of the mission.

[Kaimani]

Is anyone objecting to us supplying an air force capability to the Libyan anti government force ?

 

not so much here, from what i can say. but, again, the reason for that is not exactly what we're told.

 

if they'd said 'we're going in to protect the flow of oil...'

[epiphany]

and, with the war industry being, invariably, one of the biggest all over the world it makes sense, business wise, to keep it going. outside of the last world war it's very hard to think of a conflict fought, nation on nation, for 'honorable' reasons, especially where 'we' are concerned.

 

I suppose it depends on the stake you have in a given conflict. If it's profiteering from selling arms, banking, trade routes, corporate expansion etc., investors will inevitably favour the conditions that ensure "blood is running in the streets". It stands to reason, given the lucrative nature of war, strategic funding and lobbying will be employed by the wealthiest entities in order to perpetuate these conditions. They are not daft.

 

Why that is so difficult for people to comprehend, given the amoral and relentless nature of capital and growth in this day and age, is beyond me.

[harvey19]

not so much here, from what i can say. but, again, the reason for that is not exactly what we're told.

 

if they'd said 'we're going in to protect the flow of oil...'

 

Precisely.

Sums up this thread nicely.

[harvey19]

I'm not, but I won't pretend for one minute I know the full detail of the mission.

 

Exactly, we do not always know the underlying reasons why operations are carried out, more importantly (relative to this thread) neither do those directly involved in the conflict.

[harvey19]

I suppose it depends on the stake you have in a given conflict. If it's profiteering from selling arms, banking, trade routes, corporate expansion etc., investors will inevitably favour the conditions that ensure "blood is running in the streets". It stands to reason, given the lucrative nature of war, strategic funding and lobbying will be employed by the wealthiest entities in order to perpetuate these conditions. They are not daft.

 

Why that is so difficult for people to comprehend, given the amoral and relentless nature of capital and growth in this day and age, is beyond me.

It goes back to people wanting to beleive they are involved in a just cause.