How England Sees Itself

[droid]

I'd be interested to see a breakdown of this and know what it means by "direct and indirect". As far as I'm concerned this is by far the most troubling figure, since it's most likely to be a feature of ongoing policy...

OK, since its you asking and not Craner, Ill try and dig it out. He's well worth a read btw. Quite a serious historian.

EDIT - Extract here: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...&sig=AHIEtbQ1bQp7mo-BqdN7a8H6P_oZhb6kcQ&pli=1

 

[craner]

Ha ha, charming! That also stikes me as the only figure in Droid's list likely to be total bollocks, but I didn't want to mention it.

 

[baboon2004]

To take a slight detour - does anyone think that the reaction to the Falklands War would be different now from in 1982. Obv Maggie took full advantage of the situation to turn the popularity of her premiership around (and possibly change the course of British history to a significant degree?), but the extent to which it worked suggested absurd levels of jingoism/return to empire mentality had been stirred up among the British population (gagging for a fight, as it is otherwise known).

Would this be able to happen in 2011? I'm totally ambivalent, wanted to know everyone's thoughts.

 

[craner]

It's hard to say, I would say. There's a large and mainstream distrust of military strategy, political foreign policy, armed adventures and even defence -- and this is not just a liberal middle class majority sentiment, but a conservative one too. On the other hand, as I said earlier, I can't recall a moment in my lifetime when "the armed forces" have been more sentimentalised. It's not a glorification exactly, like the old Sun "OUR BOYS" thing of '82, but a horrible sort of maudlin idealisation -- 'help for heroes', widows' stories, singing soldiers, amputees running marathons, and all of that. It's an almost an anti-war idealisation of soldiers, like Lorraine Kelly reciting Wilfred Owen.

 

[baboon2004]

Worrying thing to me is that the Tories don't even seem to be in a weak enough position need a foreign policy adventure to resuscitate their popularity, as Labour is such a weak opponent (barely an opponent at all, in fact).

 

[Mr. Tea]

This is an interesting road to go down. It would place responsibility for Palestinian suicide bombs, and Hamas and Hezbollah rockets at the feet of Israel for instance.

Well yeah, a large part of the responsibility has to lie with the agressor. Surely you'd agree that Hamas and Hezb don't attack Israel purely out of irrational, unprovoked antisemitism?

I prefer to assume that states are responsible for their own actions. The US knew exactly what it was doing when it firebombed Tokyo, the British made precise calculations with regard to the consequences of their bombing campaigns.

I should imagine the Allied commanders didn't firebomb cities and then react with surprise when many thousands of people died. It's not really practical to wage a polite, humanitarian campaign when you're up against an aggressor pursuing a policy of total war.

You then also have to consider debates regarding the causes of wars... defenders of Japan who say that the American war embargo was an effective declaration of war on Japan. The treaty of Versailles...

Not sure why you're bringing this up. Do you consider yourself a "defender of Japan"? You said I was being ridiculous when I suggested this earlier. There are still people who consider themselves "defenders of Germany" who think national socialism was a perfectly justified response to the country's "betrayal" by Jews and Bolsheviks. Does that mean we have to consider these viewpoints as reasonable historical arguments?

And as a general moral principle. If you punch me in the face I am not then absolved of responsibility when I stab you 30 times and burn down your house just because you were the agressor.

Are you saying Britain overreacted to the Nazi threat? Ah, OK, it really was Blighty's fault after all. Glad we've cleared that up.

 

[baboon2004]

To me everything reeks of class war (obv in a complex way)...the fiction of 'nations' is the greatest PR coup of all. Who was sent to die in all these wars? Mostly those too poor to get out of it. Realpolitik all day.

 

[droid]

Well yeah, a large part of the responsibility has to lie with the agressor. Surely you'd agree that Hamas and Hezb don't attack Israel purely out of irrational, unprovoked antisemitism?

Dear god. Palestinians have a choice of when and who they target. If they choose to target pizzerias and shopping malls, Israel is not 'responsible' for killing those civilians.

You can argue that the situation has been created by Israel etc... but the Palestinians still have agency and choices. Sure, the aggressor has culpability, but total responsibility for ALL deaths?

Not sure why you're bringing this up. Do you consider yourself a "defender of Japan"? You said I was being ridiculous earlier when I suggested this earlier. There are still people who consider themselves "defenders of Germany" who think national socialism was a perfectly justified response to the country's "betrayal" by Jews and Bolsheviks. Does that mean we have to consider these viewpoints as reasonable historical arguments?

You were being ridiculous - and lazy. We're discussing WWII and agression. There is an argument that the US effectively declared war by curtailing Japan's colonialist adventures through their oil embargo. I dont agree as I dont think that Japan's colonial claims were morally or legally valid to begin with, but many countries have started wars for less.

Are you saying Britain overreacted to the Nazi threat? Ah, OK, it really was Blighty's fault after all. Glad we've cleared that up.

Ok, this is quite pathetic, and a low point for you.

Do you understand the term:

General moral principle?

As in not specifically related to any one situation?

 

[craner]

Mostly those too poor to get out of it. Realpolitik all day.

The army, navy and air force are decent career options, as it happens.

 

[vimothy]

List of holocausts, both early and late, and not all of 'em Victorian neither:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines

 

[craner]

That's a very ignorant view of the Forces, actually. Having a paid army is not "realpolitik"; nor is the army stuffed full of people too poor and thick to do anything else. This is the kind of opinion I had as a 14-year old being forced into CCF at school. Are you really going into international development with half-formed attitudes like these?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Do you understand the term:

General moral principle?

As in not specifically related to any one situation?

Yes, thank you, I'm not stupid. I also understand the principle of analogy. You were talking about, amongst other things, British bombardment of German cities in WWII. You then brought up the image of someone reacting to being punched in the face with murder and arson. Which would seem to suggest:

German aggression = punch in the face
British response = murder and arson

...right? And if that's not what you meant, what the hell did you mean?

 

[craner]

I am now waiting for somebody to post statistics to prove that I am wrong and the army is full of people too poor and thick to do anything else.

 

[vimothy]

Well, I would have thought that any subpopulation selected on the basis of qualifications is going to have a higher expected level of qualification than the population from which it's drawn.

 

[baboon2004]

That's a very ignorant view of the Forces, actually. Having a paid army is not "realpolitik"; nor is the army stuffed full of people too poor and thick to do anything else. This is the kind of opinion I had as a 14-year old being forced into CCF at school. Are you really going into international development with half-formed attitudes like these?

yep, ad hominem attacks is where it's at on this thread.

I briefly thought I'd got the terminology wrong, but just checked and realpolitik still seems to refer to "politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than ideological notions or moralistic or ethical premises." So...

A paid national army is in the pay of the state, and therefore acts according to its bidding (as the police do internally, regardless of their own political views). Since realpolitik dictates that most of what the state bases its decisions on is power-economic rather than ideological, then the army will be upholding these values, rather than vague notions about 'democracy' or 'national defence'. No?

As I understand it, veterans of Iraq joining up with OSX expressed exactly the opinion that they were there to clear the way for big business, rather than anything more ideological, but then, obviously they have 14-year-old opinions too. I'll find the article(s) for you later, if you like.

No, of course the army is not only full of poorer sections of society, hence the qualifier 'mostly'. And I never said people in the army were 'thick' (which leads me to suspect you have personal investment in this, which is usually the reason one comments on what what one wants to have been said, rather than was actually said - we've all done it). But is it untrue that many join up because the army offers other benefits (good salary, paying one's way through university), and better job prospects? I'm reading a book that touches on this point right now, in fact. Feel free to dispute this point, but denying that this is a moot point is just foolish.

If you have personal interests in this (eg one of your family is in the army), just declare them rather than being personally insulting, please. It's mystifying and boring more than anything else.

 

[vimothy]

BTW, according to Wikipedia's partial list of Holocausts,

"Between 108 BC and 1911 AD there were no fewer than 1,828 major famines in China, or one nearly every year in one or another province."

1,828!

Surely, we can say that we have finally found the Adversary, and he wasn't living round here.

 

[baboon2004]

"There is a perception that the Army recruits most of its soldiers from the least privileged socio-economic groups. MoD argues that there is little evidence to substantiate that view; but this is, at least in part, because currently MoD does not collect data on recruits' socio-economic background.[72] "

From http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmdfence/63/6306.htm , was in 2005, so may have changed since.

So truth seems to be: there is no easily obtainable evidence, and it is a moot point as to the socio-economic make-up of the armed forces.

Next sentence: "However, MoD did provide us with the results of a survey relating to Army recruits from the Cardiff area between 1998 and 2000. That study found that the majority of recruits came from a 'broken home' or 'deprived background' and had left school with no qualifications."

Ta-da! Seems that I am going into international development (I'm not, as it happens) with three-quarterly formed opinions!

 

[vimothy]

That doesn't prove much unless you can relate the sample in the survey to the population that you are trying make inferences about.

 

[droid]

Yes, thank you, I'm not stupid. I also understand the principle of analogy. You were talking about, amongst other things, British bombardment of German cities in WWII. You then brought up the image of someone reacting to being punched in the face with murder and arson. Which would seem to suggest:

German aggression = punch in the face
British response = murder and arson

...right? And if that's not what you meant, what the hell did you mean?

I know for a fact that youre not stupid, yet you seem to be coming to some very strange conclusions in this thread.

I meant exactly what I said:

And as a general moral principle. If you punch me in the face I am not then absolved of responsibility when I stab you 30 times and burn down your house just because you were the agressor.

Thats it. There is a general moral principle which states that being the victim of an attack does not absolve one's responsibility of retaliatory actions. It is also enshrined in law in most countries.

Heres a helpful key:

General = Not specific

Principle = A law or rule that has to be, or usually is to be followed, or can be desirably followed

If you want to infer that elucidating a general principle means that I was in fact doing the exact opposite and commenting on a specific case, thats up to you.

 

[craner]

I wasn't being personally insulting. I think your career trajectory is admirable, which is why I was rather surprised to see you sounding like such a buffoon. "Class war", for Goodness sake.

As far as I understand it, realpolitik is a style of politics that can be pursued by a state with a national, paid army; having a national paid army doesn't necessarily mean that it is pursuing a foreign policy of realpolitik. States can wage ideological wars with paid (or shall we say, professional) armies.