Link here
"For the time being, eastern Oregon remains free of gaping pits, cyanide ponds and 600-foot tall mounds of crushed rock. The Browns and Tuttle showed that determined opposition and a belief in attacking corporations head on can win the day, as they banished North America’s largest gold mining company from the state of Oregon."
Sunday 20 July 2008
Sunday 13 July 2008
Choice and Responsibility
I've often wondered about those who willingly join their own national army, particularly in first-world countries. What motivates them exactly? A desire to "serve" their country, or perhaps because of poor job/economic prospects otherwise,or maybe because of a streak of violence or thuggery in their character, which would flourish in such a work environment.
There was a recent flurry of reports in the UK media mourning the death of the UK's first female soldier, on duty in Afghanistan, with various outlets glorifying her as a hero who had fallen while doing her duty for Queen and country. I wonder, do these soldiers really know what they are fighting for? Are they aware of the local complexities of the lands they are posted to? Are their goals clear in their minds?
Or maybe, perhaps, they are just following the orders of their superiors and hoping for the best, or attempting to put a positive spin on it, or at least convince themselves of the necessity of what they are doing?
If a young English teenager from a council estate enlists in the army, he could get sent to Afganistan. Would he be aware of the writings of a Greek historian, writing before the birth of Christ, that the inhabitants of what is now Afghanistan were " the bravest of all the peoples of the Indus"? Does he know that Alexander the Great got an arrow in his leg when attempting to cross the Khyber pass? Or of Genghis Khan's failure to capture this area? Or of the failure of Imperial
Britain to subjugate this area in the past?
If you are joining an army, you are basically involved in the business of killing people. You had better be sure that you are fighting in a good cause, otherwise you are basically a murderer. That may sound a tad simple, say if you are fighting against odious Taliban on the ground, but if fighting them is pointlessly
perpetuating strife and bloodshed in the surrounding area, then the result is the same (although aircraft pilots who jettison "smart bombs" and end up incinerating women and children at weddings could easily be classed as murderers).
The point is that if you have decided to become a soldier and are going to be engaged in actions with potentially
devastating consequences, on personal and national levels (be it families losing loved ones or a whole society facing
collapse), then you had better be well-informed. It is all very well mourning the dead soldiers, but at the end of the day, the soldiers have made their choice, and this choice carries consequences, whether the soldier is aware of them or
not. If you are engaged in actions which are causing great suffering and pain to others, don't be surprised if they fight back. Saying that you were only following orders is no excuse. Either way, you are harming others, nomatter how "nice" a person you may be outside of your line of work.
These soldiers are being sent out to fight and kill by their superiors in the army and government. For their cause to be just, their superiors' intentions have to be good, seeing as in modern armies, orders are followed to the letter. If an
army is sent abroad to another country merely to expand economic or political interests, by politicians who do not care how many innocents die in the process, then the soldiers of that army are no better than mercenaries. I would add that in many ways the nature of modern warfare itself is inherently immoral, but that is a point for another time.
(This applies to the armies of developing countries as well. The conduct of the Lebanese army in the destruction of Nahr Al-Bared springs to mind.)
There was a recent flurry of reports in the UK media mourning the death of the UK's first female soldier, on duty in Afghanistan, with various outlets glorifying her as a hero who had fallen while doing her duty for Queen and country. I wonder, do these soldiers really know what they are fighting for? Are they aware of the local complexities of the lands they are posted to? Are their goals clear in their minds?
Or maybe, perhaps, they are just following the orders of their superiors and hoping for the best, or attempting to put a positive spin on it, or at least convince themselves of the necessity of what they are doing?
If a young English teenager from a council estate enlists in the army, he could get sent to Afganistan. Would he be aware of the writings of a Greek historian, writing before the birth of Christ, that the inhabitants of what is now Afghanistan were " the bravest of all the peoples of the Indus"? Does he know that Alexander the Great got an arrow in his leg when attempting to cross the Khyber pass? Or of Genghis Khan's failure to capture this area? Or of the failure of Imperial
Britain to subjugate this area in the past?
If you are joining an army, you are basically involved in the business of killing people. You had better be sure that you are fighting in a good cause, otherwise you are basically a murderer. That may sound a tad simple, say if you are fighting against odious Taliban on the ground, but if fighting them is pointlessly
perpetuating strife and bloodshed in the surrounding area, then the result is the same (although aircraft pilots who jettison "smart bombs" and end up incinerating women and children at weddings could easily be classed as murderers).
The point is that if you have decided to become a soldier and are going to be engaged in actions with potentially
devastating consequences, on personal and national levels (be it families losing loved ones or a whole society facing
collapse), then you had better be well-informed. It is all very well mourning the dead soldiers, but at the end of the day, the soldiers have made their choice, and this choice carries consequences, whether the soldier is aware of them or
not. If you are engaged in actions which are causing great suffering and pain to others, don't be surprised if they fight back. Saying that you were only following orders is no excuse. Either way, you are harming others, nomatter how "nice" a person you may be outside of your line of work.
These soldiers are being sent out to fight and kill by their superiors in the army and government. For their cause to be just, their superiors' intentions have to be good, seeing as in modern armies, orders are followed to the letter. If an
army is sent abroad to another country merely to expand economic or political interests, by politicians who do not care how many innocents die in the process, then the soldiers of that army are no better than mercenaries. I would add that in many ways the nature of modern warfare itself is inherently immoral, but that is a point for another time.
(This applies to the armies of developing countries as well. The conduct of the Lebanese army in the destruction of Nahr Al-Bared springs to mind.)
Thursday 10 July 2008
'This is like apartheid': ANC veterans visit West Bank
Article here
"The daily indignity to which the Palestinian population is subjected far outstrips the apartheid regime. And the effectiveness with which the bureaucracy implements the repressive measures far exceed that of the apartheid regime."
"The daily indignity to which the Palestinian population is subjected far outstrips the apartheid regime. And the effectiveness with which the bureaucracy implements the repressive measures far exceed that of the apartheid regime."
Wednesday 9 July 2008
The theft of Iraq
The US's real aims for Iraq
"The Bush administration's top benchmark, the Iraqi oil law, remains off the statute books, five deadlines and two years since its first draft. Yet the Iraqi cabinet keeps threatening to pass it, despite the lack of a parliamentary majority backing it.
The law would allow regions, represented by sectarian elites originally empowered in 2003, to sign their own contracts, create their own oil laws and develop their own industries, without democratic oversight. This, critics say, could lead to the break-up of the country and create new sectarian, economic and political facts on the ground. One Iraqi oil company manager previously employed by Shell told me, "I see the future of Iraq as the United Arab Emirates... separate states."
Link here
"The Bush administration's top benchmark, the Iraqi oil law, remains off the statute books, five deadlines and two years since its first draft. Yet the Iraqi cabinet keeps threatening to pass it, despite the lack of a parliamentary majority backing it.
The law would allow regions, represented by sectarian elites originally empowered in 2003, to sign their own contracts, create their own oil laws and develop their own industries, without democratic oversight. This, critics say, could lead to the break-up of the country and create new sectarian, economic and political facts on the ground. One Iraqi oil company manager previously employed by Shell told me, "I see the future of Iraq as the United Arab Emirates... separate states."
Link here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)