This looks like a film worth seeing for anyone who values the bravery and steadfastness of the American soldier, as I do and as should any Briton. (Full disclosure: I am related to several people serving in the US military). Kevin Bacon is a fine actor and well chosen for the lead part.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
26 comments to Paying respects |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
I admire the bravery and steadfastness of the brave and steadfast American soldiers.
Are you suggesting that every American soldier has these qualities ? I don’t believe it’s possible to weed out all the whimps or opportunists, and I’m sure it hasn’t been done.
Or are you suggesting that we should admire those qualities even in the individuals who don’t possess them ?
Remember, we’re all individuals.
“bravery and steadfastness of the AVERAGE American soldier” might be more apt.
One judges a military by the actions of most people in that military – not the actions (real or made up) of a few nutjobs.
By the way, contrary to the impression given by endless New York Times (and other such outlets) stories, violent crime among Americans returned from military service is LOWER than among young men who have not served.
They are the best of their generation.
Never had the inclination to respond to a comment before but Paul, your comment gives me pause for question.
Surely the best of the current generation are those who neither feel the need to go off and kill overseas nor kill indifferently at home but rather are perfectly happy earning a living and letting others live how they please as long as they don’t violate their rights?
Certainly soldiers, as with other groups of people, have the good and the bad but I still fail to see how even the rank and file who generally “do their duty” are little more then hired thugs.
In the case of the US an armed forces which should not even exist under the consitution, has no remit for overseas deployment outside of war and instead of a defender of liberty and the consitution is used as a masterful tool of terror for whatever idiotic scheme congress and the executive dream up for enforcing their will both on the American people and the world.
I seem to recall a rather good post by you last year dealing with the subject of how the left in the US are making use of totalitarianism to suppress the very notion of freedom of speech so theirs is both the only acceptable voice but the only voice heard (something I think we actually manage to do much better then the US particularly in light of recent events). How is the military of either the UK or US not an extension of this very policy?
We profess to be delivering freedom to the world under the banner of democracy, an utter joke in and of itself, and essentially forcibly imparting both our culture and our ridiculous forms of government elsewhere in the world. At last at home our totalitarianism is generally not as overt as slaughtering lots of people, forcibly changing their form of government and then handing all the contracts to clean up our mess to your Eton friends (well, maybe just that last one).
The soldiers themselves are as guilty as those who order them in to battle and the politicians who’s policies they are enforcing. Until they refuse to fight, even if it involves jail time, I refuse to call them by anything other than what they really are; vile fascist murdering scum.
Liam Leane posts here courtesy of folk who fought & died for his right so to do…
That, of course, means nothing to those who are nothing.
Back under your wet stone, Leane
“How is the military of either the UK or US not an extension of this very policy?” Your argument is invalid. Political criticism of the military is not legally forbidden, not even during times of active conflict.
“…vile fascist murdering scum.” any and all thoughtful consideration I had of your viewpoint ended with this pathetically predictable juvenile statement.
“Surely the best of the current generation are those who neither feel the need to go off and kill . . .”
Or maybe they are the best of their current generation because they are responding to their need to go out and protect their loved ones at home by putting themselves in harms way in order to root out those desiring to do their loved ones harm.
Liam thinks that he sees the basic truth in a man or women who joins the military purely by virtue of their choosing to join. It means they’re fascist, of course! Liam speeks da troof!
When the reality is that a man or woman who joins the military today are among the type of human who, like a fireman running into a burning building, runs towards a disaster in progress, while everyone else runs away, because they believe they can make things better or reduce suffering.
In my (admittedly brief) career in the Royal Navy, I met men and women who count as the best people I have ever met, in every sense. The same was true for those I met who served in the RAF, Royal Marines and the Army.
A very moving story and just one example of how those US soldiers who gave their lives in support for their country are received on return to their homes. Most of this is spontaneous but much is also official policy. Compare this story with that of the way the deceased UK military are received, with planes landing at dead of night with little ceremony and the conspicuous absence of any government official. This film should be compulsory viewing to all those in this Government and they then should be asked where they were when the UK dead returned home.
Reading up on this, and being a supporter of the US armed forces, this sounds like an excellent project and I look forward to seeing the resulting film.
I also agree that Kevin Bacon is a fine actor. But, this is the internet so I must mention that my Bacon number is 2 – I was an extra in Yanks which featured William Devane, who was in Hollow Man with Kevin Bacon.
If the movie is as advertised, it’ll be nice to have Hollywood on our side for a change.
Liam Leane has already had the tar kicked out of him by other commenters over his views but in a spirit of charity, let me try and figure out what LL is trying to do here. Maybe he is suffering from misplaced idealism. He thinks that people who volunteer to serve in the armed forces and who are sent abroad to certain conflicts are evil thugs. He seems also be a strict isolationist, regarding any projection of military force outside the nation state to be an outrage. He is contemptuous of attempts to spread democracy abroad, and maybe his skepticism is justified. This is pretty standard fare from parts of the Paleo-Right as well as the Chomskyite left. It has a certain consistency, if not logic.
But surely if America, or Britain, is attacked by forces using foreign bases – such as how Al Queda used Afghanistan under protection of the Taliban – then it is a legitimate form of self defence after an attack to destroy said bases. This issue becomes doubly relevant given how terrorist groups are used as proxies by hostile nations, such as Iran, or by corrupt ones, like Saudi Arabia.
If the UK or other countries’ citizens own property in other countries, and that property is seized and their lives put at risk, then again, the obsession of the isolationists with the principle that national borders trump all other considerations falls down. And even if we don’t have tax-funded armies to deal with these issues, but used, say, private mercenaries instead, then such forces will inevitably affect innocent bystanders, which will incur the wrath of the Liams of this world.
People like Liam want to live in a little ideological purist fantasy world where hard decisions about defence can be reduced to such an extent as to cease to be an issue. But as even I, a fairly radical libertarian has to accept, defence of life and property means getting out of our little intellectual comfort zones. I hope Liam, if he has a shred of adult intelligence, grasps that point and grows up.
Johnathan,
My problem with Liam’s version of using force only for self defence is not so much with his definition of ‘defence’, but with his national definition of ‘self’.
My view is that the ‘self’ we should be defending is everyone who wants and respects freedom, not to divide it along arbitrary lines of nation or culture. That is our society.
Afghan girls who want to go to school are “us”, as much as the ordinary citizens of New York or London. It’s not about who pays taxes for it; we don’t charge even the poorest of our own citizens for liberty. And those girls pay with a courage most of us should hope we’ll never need. It’s about the survival of liberty itself. That which does not grow, dies. If we plant no seeds of freedom now, then we will starve for it later. When the tyrants arrive at our own gates, there will be nobody left to come to our aid.
Besides the rage at the state’s taxes, and general suspicion of all it does, I have never really understood why isolationism has such a strong hold within libertarian thinking. The struggle for liberty has never been pacifist – it is violence used to oppress it opposes. And to argue for leaving the likes of the Taliban alone to get on with it simply boggles the mind. What is it with that?
“My view is that the ‘self’ we should be defending is everyone who wants and respects freedom, not to divide it along arbitrary lines of nation or culture.” – Pa Annoyed
That’s a nice sentiment, but every bit as much “ivory tower purist fantasy” as LL’s world. It is all about “who pays taxes for it.” If you want to support Afghan girls who want to go to school (a worthy sentiment), dig into your pocket, or pick up a rifle and volunteer to do so. But don’t assert that because they are deserving human beings you have a right to pick my pocket to support their cause; appeal to my rational self-interest and seek my voluntary cooperation. I have no choice in paying taxes to a rapacious government (well, I suppose in some sense I do have a choice, but I don’t care for the likely consequences of declining to pay), but since those taxes are levied upon those of us who live within those “arbitrary lines of nation” it is not unreasonable for me to expect that my taxes be used for our benefit, not the benefit of others not so taxed.
I take your point – it would be better that we paid for an army and its missions out of choice.
But if we all want liberty we do need an army of the sort of size a state can support anyway, so of all the things the state picks our pockets for, that is one of the least offensive. Any true libertarian would have done it anyway. I assert no right, only necessity. You’re welcome to call for another way of funding it, I only object to calls not to do it.
It’s a peculiarly mixed thesis. It object to taxes and the state, but uses taxes and the state as its justification for not doing what’s right. It would be like them saying you can’t use their gun to shoot tyrants without permission, and then not giving their permission. The former I can understand, but how does the latter help liberty? Is this not tantamount to the argument that we should have the freedom to be tyrants?
Suppose we have the alternative proposed, and have each contribute to their own defence. So what do you do if you can’t afford it? If you have no money, because you are enslaved? The rich will live in fortresses, and the poor will suffer. And you will almost certainly be poor. Is that just your hard luck? Is liberty a right, or merely a good to be traded?
Your freedom was won for you by people you can never repay directly, because many of them died long ago. Perhaps you would consider it a just repayment to them, to pass the favour on?
But surely if America, or Britain, is attacked by forces using foreign bases – such as how Al Queda used Afghanistan under protection of the Taliban – then it is a legitimate form of self defence after an attack to destroy said bases.
Absolutely, form a standing army at legitimate need and deal with a situation but to have a standing army engaged throughout the world is entirely unacceptable in my view. I appreciate the threat that many element of Islam hold over us but I do not believe this justifies most, if not all, of the action in the last decade. The US had a cause for action after 9/11, but we most certainly did not.
f the UK or other countries’ citizens own property in other countries, and that property is seized and their lives put at risk, then again, the obsession of the isolationists with the principle that national borders trump all other considerations falls down.
I don’t see why protection of any government is extended beyond its borders. If someone wishes to ensure their safety outside the borders of any form of state then they should deal with that themselves.
And even if we don’t have tax-funded armies to deal with these issues, but used, say, private mercenaries instead, then such forces will inevitably affect innocent bystanders, which will incur the wrath of the Liams of this world.
I don’t have issue with the use of force as a tool of self-defense (I wish it was practiced far more and with far less restriction then we have). My issue with armed forces intervention overseas is precisely because it is collective and not individualist in nature. A man acting in self-interest defending another is justified but a politician prosecuting a policy is not.
Civil and criminal courts exist to deal with any property damage, injuries or death that mercenaries may cause and I would suggest that they would likely do a much better job at oversight then is currently done.
But as even I, a fairly radical libertarian has to accept, defence of life and property means getting out of our little intellectual comfort zones. I hope Liam, if he has a shred of adult intelligence, grasps that point and grows up.
I have no problem admitting that what I believe to be just ever becoming even close to a reality is at the absurd end of unlikely and that there are easier, as well as more practical, ways of accomplishing things but that doesn’t change my stance. Would it be easier to defend liberty with armed forces deployments overseas to protect our interests? Absolutely but in doing so I would argue it destroys liberty. As far as I am concerned self-ownership (including the responsibility that entails) is unequivocally absolute.
But if we all want liberty we do need an army of the sort of size a state can support anyway, so of all the things the state picks our pockets for, that is one of the least offensive.
National defense (see? There’s that pesky “arbitrary lines of nation” again!) is absolutely the principal function of government, so I basically agree with this point (reserving, however, the right to argue about the necessity of maintaining standing armies of modern size).
Any true libertarian would have done it anyway.
Really? Any “true libertarian” would scour the globe looking for oppressed peoples to liberate? I don’t think so. By my reckoning a “true libertarian” would start by looking out for his own freedom, and that of his family, then expand the circle to include his neighbors, community, state and nation. I guess you don’t consider me a “true libertarian”, since I reject any moral imperative to liberate everyone on the planet. That’s OK; I’m comfortable with that.
I assert no right, only necessity.
Necessity on whose part? Not mine. I support the right of all people everywhere to stand up to their oppressors, but whether they choose to do so is their decision. And their need creates no obligation on my part. I reserve the right to decide for myself which causes I support, and how I do so.
Please note that I am resisting here the urge to cite one relatively recent example of the unpleasant result of the citation of “necessity”, because it would undoubtedly cause someone to invoke Godwin’s Law (and it’s too early in this thread for that).
You’re welcome to call for another way of funding it, I only object to calls not to do it.
Your objection is noted but not agreed with, because it assumes an obligation on the part of someone other than those directly affected to “do it”.
As you noted, my freedom was indeed won (and retained) by those whom I can never repay directly. However, they won that freedom principally for themselves and their immediate families, and secondarily for their descendants (of which I am one). They did not do so for the benefit of persons with whom they share no relationship of any sort (blood, nationality, etc.). The way I repay them is by preserving that freedom for my descendants. That is an obligation which we are doing a very poor job of discharging, in my opinion. Nonetheless, seeking out foreign tyrants to destroy does nothing to change that sad fact.
Incidentally, nothing I have said here is intended to indicate concurrence with Liam’s first post. The young men and women in our military are indeed among the best of their generation. They are doing their best to preserve and expand our freedoms, under very difficult circumstances. The lengths to which they go to avoid “collateral damage” are extraordinary, and the incidence of war atrocities is amazingly small given the nature of their assignment. If we disagree with their specific deployment, that is a reflection on our political leadership, not on them. Calling them names such as vile fascist murdering scum is inexcusable and indefensible.
I am a minarchist. In my version of a free world, we who choose to be citizens would have time-share government- we would first serve for a few weeks in any civil defence, or fire-fighter capacity, and that would give us a few weeks to be the government, and then the next lot of citizens would have their turn, and repeating this next year. No taxation and no representation, because we all accept a share of government, and would be trained in weapons use, and, like the swiss, would keep our weapons at home.
County-style militia. That would be my version of a minimal government- one without professional politicians.
I saw the movie just the other night, rather by chance as someone else had it on when I returned from a pub session with one of our Manhattan based commentariat. As it originated in Hollywood, I was expecting the usual… and was very, very surprised.
It was quite a good movie and both Marines and parents and friends of Marines were treated realistically and respectfully.
Liam, thanks for your courteous response. I’ll respond to a couple of them:
And I would not disagree. In my book, the military, if they are required to take out a dangerous enemy that has attacked our soil, should be brought back from the theatre of operations as soon as possible. I certainly do not see the need for a vast network of military bases, although some presence, with the agreement of local populations, does not strike me as wrong.
Up to a point. If a foreign firm doing business in say, Saudi Arabia, wants to employ local security services and pay for them, fine. I also don’t have any problem with firms or indeed individuals hiring security services to do the job. But if UK citizens working abroad are attacked in another country, or if a foreign nation provides a haven and training ground for terror groups that attack us, then such a country becomes a legitimate target, in my view. (That leaves aside the practical issue of how exactly such a target should be hit, and by what).
I was against going into Iraq.
Partly because I thought (and still think) it was a waste of both money and soldiers lives.
And partly because I could not look myself in the mirror and pretend I really cared what Saddam did to the locals. Largely because Iraqi governments have mostly been like that since there have been such things as Iraqi governments, and the locals (according to people I knew as a child) all complain about whatever tyrant happens to be in charge – whilst being just cruel as him whenever they have they chance.
I am not a nice person, I admit that, so I tend to think badly of people – no doubt many (most?) people in Iraq are really nice and stuff – but I could not pretend to myself that I had much confidence that they were.
However, it was Saddam who was the “murdering Fascist” not General P. or President Bush (much though I dislike Bushbrain).
The enemy were and are the bad guys – worse than me, and a lot worse than the soldiers (mostly highly intelligent actually) who risk their lives to fight them.
Let’s get real here. The global market economy has as a necessary pre-condition conditions of reasonable peace in most of the world, most of the time. The way we have created such conditions is, and always has been over the whole course of the period where it makes any sense to talk of a global economy at all, through western military hegemony.
On the whole, I think Britain in the 19th century did a much better job, partly because it wasn’t so extensively crippled by fundamentally defective ideologies such as liberalism and partly because the job was easier for technological reasons. The U.S.A. even 30 years ago was much better: Allende got offed pretty sharpish before he could turn Chile into a desert; where the bloody hell have the CIA been while Zimbabwe turned to shit? Why in the sam hell is an American puppet not sitting in Tehran? What the fucking fuck is Chavez still doing breathing? Whatever, we have what we have.
Everyone here has a serious stake in maintaining the dominant position of Christendom and shouldn’t forget it.
On a side note, I never grow tired of how Libertarians veer erratically between isolationist America-First arguments and “vile fascist murdering scum” and expect no-one to notice.
It’s like a sign I once read “bring the troops home … we can’t spit on them from here”.
Gabriel, you make a very valid point (gulp!) And Samizata gets a lot of heat from Big-L libertarians and others for not toeing the Murray Rothbard party line because some contributors here – such as Perry and me – supported the overthrow of the Taliban and the late, unlamented Mr Hussein. For that we are called “neo-con” warmongers and other words. Yawn.
The libertarian core ethic of the non-aggression principle does not, repeat does not, rule out pre-emptive attacks on regimes deemed and shown to have been violent, dangerous and hostile. And far too many libertarians seem to become so concerned about respect for national borders that they, as PA Annoyed says, lose sight of liberties of individuals.
There are of course good, practical reasons for opposing many foreign wars and expeditions, not least, the law of unintended consequences, the costs, the loss to innocent life, etc. But war is not necessarily the worst thing that can happen. And it is also far from always the case that “war is the health of the state”; states can and do contract after wars are over, such as Britain after the Napoleonic War, for example.
Sorry Gabriel but to that I can only I for one am not an isolationist and that was a pratish remark unworthy of you.
I was referring to Liam, I’ll just quote the two bits I was referring to:
If I remember correctly, Rich Paul used to pull the exact same trick around here, switching between “we haz killed 10 billion arabs in the last two weeks alone!!!!11!!” to “I don’t give two hoots about arabs, I just wanna cut military spending” as needs required.
In fairness, much of the Left do the exact same thing, but, in my experience, they can’t match Rothbardians for sheer gusto in their cognitive dissonance.
Chevez?
For once the Rothbardians have a point.
There was a coup against Chevez and he was captured.
And who jumped up down saying “do not kill him, do not kill him”.
Bushbrain (although everyone, bar me, seems to have forgetten this). So it was a failure of intervention.
First rule of a coup – kill off the previous government leaders and key supporters.
By the way – Pinochet followed his own way in 1973.
It would have been very different with the C.I.A in charge – even then.