Abraham Maslowwhich in "The Psychology of Science" p.15.
As a young man growing up in a country that had a conscription army, i was 'forced' to start thinking about it at an early age. Being a 'product' of the Sixties, for me this was in the early to mid Eighties. On this subject, my Confusion Started Early...Of course, my World was a Slightly Different Place then.My views on the mater have changed a lot since then. (Although i realized then and still today consider myself a Pacifist.)As a teenager, at the conscription 'Medical and Mental' screening, i indicated i was Unwilling to Touch any Arms, but willing to do what would probably translate as "Substituting Conscription" where you preform some 'Civilian Duties'.
|
I still very much Dislike the Look of Violence; i'm the kind of guy that jumps in between a fight in order to Brake it Up. I do however not not except the 'Military Mindset' any more. (double negative is not a mistake). I realize people have as much right to believe that the use of force can be a solution, as that i believe it probably won't solve anything...
I do also now realize there will be situations were i Will Result in using force; if someone would threaten the Ones i Love... (These "the Ones i Love" includes myself, so "Self Defence" is on the list as well.)
Of course, the above is all an Emotional Response. But then there is Reasoning...
"upholds the claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of its order."
Max Weber-Politics as a Vocation.
In other words: the 'State' claims a 'Monopoly on Violence'...
Almost on This Ground Alone, i have come to the conclusion that i feel people have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
(Although it is probably not something i would choose for myself.)
I think Most People will agree that a Monopoly is Never a Preferred Option, although Most People will also think they are talking about Commerce than.
An other reason why i feel People have the right to Arm is the Right to Protect Property. They should Not hand Responsibility for that over to a "State"
Back to Defence.
Ahum... Allow me to point out the Obvious...
defence or defense (dɪˈfɛns) — n
1. resistance against danger, attack, or harm; protection 2. a person or thing that provides such resistance |
offence or offense (əˈfɛns) — n
1. a violation or breach of a law, custom, rule, etc 2. a. any public wrong or crime b. a nonindictable crime punishable on summary conviction 3. annoyance, displeasure, or resentment 4. give offence , give offence to someone to cause annoyance or displeasure to someone 5. take offence to feel injured, humiliated, or offended 6. a source of annoyance, displeasure, or anger 7. attack; assault |
Why do most governments call the political arm of their forces "Ministry of Defence"? If they are willing to deploy troops Outside of Their Borders, surely it will have to be called "Ministry of Offence"...
A term first coined during the Cold War, but now used again in the propaganda... (oh, Sorry... that was the Communists... We Don't have That here...) 'spinDoctors' for the War on Terror's justification for 'Armed Intervention' is what they call; 'the Pre-Emptive Strike'... In this way, the offence is really a defence! How clever is that!!!
This 'Pre-Emptive Strike' seems to be Difficult to Define, with only a handful of Attempts present on line:
pre-emptive strike: a surprise attack that is launched in order to prevent the enemy from doing it to you (check)
Surely if you have the 'Intelligence' to Know your enemy is going to attack it's Not a surprise any more...
I need to find a better definition that can be used to Justify this...
Ah! This is what the BBC has to say:
link to source
Pre-emptive strikes: A pre-emptive strike is military action taken by a country in response to a threat from another country - the purpose of it is to stop the threatening country from carrying out its threat.
The problem: A pre-emptive strike can conflict with the doctrine of the just war in two ways:
The problem: A pre-emptive strike can conflict with the doctrine of the just war in two ways:
- it is carried out before the other side attacks with military force, and so appears to make the side carrying out the strike the aggressor
- it is usually carried out before a formal declaration of war
" 'appears' to make the side carrying out the strike the aggressor "....
Shouldn't that say;
'it is carried out before the other side attacks with military force, and so makes the side carrying out the strike the aggressor'... ?
If you listen to the BBC regular, you must have heard this quite a bit:
"Impartiality lies at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC's commitment to its audiences"
Could it be that the Wording of this Definition on the Ethics Guide has a Slight Bias?
Could it be that the "US-UK Special Relationship" did in any way or form Helped formulating this definition?
sidetracked... sidetracked. Back to ' pre emptive strike'. How does that work?
A bit of text copied from Wiki, about a man named Gustave Gilbert
" In 1945, after the end of the war, Gilbert was sent to Nuremberg, Germany, as a translator for the International Military Tribunal for the trials of the World War II German prisoners. Gilbert was appointed the Prison Psychologist of the German prisoners ..... Gilbert also participated in the Nuremberg Trials as the American Military Chief Psychologist ...
... In 1947 he published part of his diary, consisting of observations taken during interviews, interrogations, “eavesdropping” and conversations with German prisoners, under the title Nuremberg Diary... The following is a famous exchange Gilbert had with Göring from this book:
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. " source
... In 1947 he published part of his diary, consisting of observations taken during interviews, interrogations, “eavesdropping” and conversations with German prisoners, under the title Nuremberg Diary... The following is a famous exchange Gilbert had with Göring from this book:
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. " source
Doesn't that sound familiair if you think about it...
The Cenotaph is the war memorial in Whitehall, London. the word "Cenotaph" means "Empty Tomb", it is "a monument erected in honour of a person or group of people whose remains are elsewhere". Many towns throughout the United Kingdom and in fact throughout the world have erected cenotaphs. I don't have a problem with this at all.
But...
This specific one in London has the following words carved in it:
Since when are the dead, Especially War dead, glorious?
Dead People are just Dead...
My opinion:
Dead Soldiers are Spent...
Abused...
Chattel...
(I'm not alone:)
"Dumb stupid animals to be used"
as quoted in "The Final Days" by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein
instead of their real enemies back home in the capitals"
Edward Abbey