Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[murphy]

On 28/04/2020 at 09:12, lildave3 said:

Since we are in unpopular opinions...

 

Those who take up a career to save lives are infinitely more heroic than those who take up a career to end them. 

 

In other news I am getting fed up of all these initiatives, the minutes silence being the latest. 

Have you not considered the idea that our armed forces defend and save lives?

 

Also, the military is out there now putting themselves at risk to save others during the crisis.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, murphy said:

Have you not considered the idea that our armed forces defend and save lives?

 

Also, the military is out there now putting themselves at risk to save others during the crisis.

As above:

 

21 hours ago, leicsmac said:

On the earlier topic, as the UK military is all volunteer I would posit that anyone who signs up for service at least accepts the possibility that at some point their actions - if under orders - will directly or indirectly result in the death of another human being. Of course, it may not happen and it often doesn't happen, but the possibility is always going to be there. How that sits morally depends of course on the beholder.

 

If the idea concerned an individual so much, they wouldn't consider signing up with that associated possibility in the first place.

 

 

[murphy]

My point is that while it is obvious that anyone joining the armed services faces the possibility of conflict and killing, that the flip side of that is that conflict can save lives, and protect people, not to mention helping to liberate Europe twice.

 

Look at the reception England and their fans received in Kosovo, such is the grattitude of the locals for the part we played in protecting them.  The image below is not England fans, it is Kosovo fans.

 

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, murphy said:

My point is that while it is obvious that anyone joining the armed services faces the possibility of conflict and killing, that the flip side of that is that conflict can save lives, and protect people, not to mention helping to liberate Europe twice.

 

Look at the reception England and their fans received in Kosovo, such is the grattitude of the locals for the part we played in protecting them.  The image below is not England fans, it is Kosovo fans.

 

...not entirely sure WWI was really about liberating Europe (WWII certainly of course was), but that's a whole other debate. As is the morality or lack thereof of war as a whole.

 

My own probably unpopular opinion is that there are very, very few "just" wars and far more that are merely said to be "just" in order to give them a veneer of justification.

[Dahnsouff]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...not entirely sure WWI was really about liberating Europe (WWII certainly of course was), but that's a whole other debate. As is the morality or lack thereof of war as a whole.

 

My own probably unpopular opinion is that there are very, very few "just" wars and far more that are merely said to be "just" in order to give them a veneer of justification.

Think you are conferring the act of war and its repercussions onto an individual though. Joining the armed forces, not dissimilar to joining the health service, has the opportunity to be morally and ethically a minefield on an individual basis.

The fact that decisions taken by those that govern/control the armed or health service are later judged to be ill informed or worse, nefarious, is not a direct matter for the individual.

[Sampson]

18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...not entirely sure WWI was really about liberating Europe (WWII certainly of course was), but that's a whole other debate. As is the morality or lack thereof of war as a whole.

 

My own probably unpopular opinion is that there are very, very few "just" wars and far more that are merely said to be "just" in order to give them a veneer of justification.

Of course not- but again, that's the decision of politicians, not soldiers. You're talking about something entirely different - you're talking about wars as an abstract concept which had nothing to do with the subject- the subject was about the ordinary people who are members of the armed forces who have to live them.

 

Innocent men may have died in WW1 needlessly, but that is not the fault of the individual soldiers over the government. In fact I can't think of many people from history we're indebted to than those who had to live the trenches and going over the top.

 

Our intervention in Yugoslavia in the late 90s/early 00s for example almost certainly saved more lives than were killed.

 

And the soldiers who had to go into a foreign country and put their own lives at risk to help stop racial cleansing and genocide, even though they knew it might involve killing other people - they are certainly worth the same praise as NHS workers trying to save lives during pandemics of infections diseases or firefighters running into fires to save people.

 

People join the armed forces because they want to save and protect people and it's a job that we certainly should be heavily indebted to the ordinary people who do it just as we are our NHS workers or fire fighters. Trying to diminish what the actual soldiers on the ground do because some politicians above started some wars you perceive as unjust absolutely is heartless.

Edited 29 April 2020 by Sampson

[murphy]

I think we owe our armed forces a huge debt of gratitude and it is one of my particular bugbears with the left that they are often so reluctant to acknowledge this.

[Sampson]

15 minutes ago, murphy said:

I think we owe our armed forces a huge debt of gratitude and it is one of my particular bugbears with the left that they are often so reluctant to acknowledge this.

It's certainly one thing that otherwise empathetic individuals seem to be sadly so bullishly callous about. Some even seem to actively look down on people in the armed forces oblivious to the sacrifices they make and the danger they put themselves in.

 

Same with the police as well. Although I've noticed how some have shifted radically on this since the reduction in police numbers have seen knife crime etc. hugely rise the past few years and shown just how much the police do every day, putting themselves in the line of danger to keep us safe and protect us. And now it's often the same people who used to scorn the police who are now asking for their numbers on the streets to go up again.

 

Hopefully we never have to be put in a similar situation where we have to see a world where ourselves and our allies lose our armed forces for people to appreciate them.

Edited 29 April 2020 by Sampson

[StanSP]

What have I just read? The left used to scorn the police and armed forces and have previously been reluctant to acknowledge the sacrifices made in World wars? Eh? 

 

Who do you guys speak to

 

[Sampson]

17 minutes ago, StanSP said:

What have I just read? The left used to scorn the police and armed forces and have previously been reluctant to acknowledge the sacrifices made in World wars? Eh? 

 

Who do you guys speak to

 

You obvious haven't read anything and you've read into it what you wanted to read. I didn't even mention the left, I was just referring to people in general, I didn't mention anything about any political persuasion. 

Edited 29 April 2020 by Sampson

[Toddybad]

1 hour ago, murphy said:

I think we owe our armed forces a huge debt of gratitude and it is one of my particular bugbears with the left that they are often so reluctant to acknowledge this.

 

59 minutes ago, Sampson said:

It's certainly one thing that otherwise empathetic individuals seem to be sadly so bullishly callous about. Some even seem to actively look down on people in the armed forces oblivious to the sacrifices they make and the danger they put themselves in.

 

Same with the police as well. Although I've noticed how some have shifted radically on this since the reduction in police numbers have seen knife crime etc. hugely rise the past few years and shown just how much the police do every day, putting themselves in the line of danger to keep us safe and protect us. And now it's often the same people who used to scorn the police who are now asking for their numbers on the streets to go up again.

 

Hopefully we never have to be put in a similar situation where we have to see a world where ourselves and our allies lose our armed forces for people to appreciate them.

I'm not sure there's any group as a whole (rather than a few idiots within a group) that doesn't wish individuals within the forces their best wishes and agree that they deserve much better treatment in this country for what they do - the way we treat our veterans is scandalous.

 

There's a difference between questioning the national decision to fight some of the wars we have and opinions about individuals within the forces, which is where I think the waters get muddied in an some people's eyes.

[StanSP]

24 minutes ago, Sampson said:

You obvious haven't read anything and you've read into it what you wanted to read. I didn't even mention the left, I was just referring to people in general, I didn't mention anything about any political persuasion. 

It was a response to Murphy as well, not just you

[Jon the Hat]

We should respect the armed forces and police, NHS etc, but also recognise that they chose their profession.

When something like this pandemic, or indeed a war comes along, they deserve additional recognition for continuing to do their jobs in the face of additional pressure, stress and risk.

The whole idolisation of the NHS as an entity is a bit over the top imo.  Most of the NHS is not in fact treating Covid patients, and a fair chunk of the top brass also should take some responsibility for any lack of preparedness.

Edited 29 April 2020 by Jon the Hat

[Sampson]

17 minutes ago, Toddybad said:

 

I'm not sure there's any group as a whole (rather than a few idiots within a group) that doesn't wish individuals within the forces their best wishes and agree that they deserve much better treatment in this country for what they do - the way we treat our veterans is scandalous.

 

There's a difference between questioning the national decision to fight some of the wars we have and opinions about individuals within the forces, which is where I think the waters get muddied in an some people's eyes.

But again - we weren't talking about whether government decisions to go to war were right or not, that should be irrelevant really. The original discussion was about whether we should praise members of our national forces alongside NHS staff during a pandemic putting themselves at risk to save others - of which a couple of posters suggested that we shouldn't because they volunteer knowing there might be the possibility they have to kill others (which is also true of the police, MI5, anti-terrorist units etc - and even to some extent the NHS too when it comes to having to decide whether to triage during a pandemic or not to resuscitate or pull the plug etc. on patients that have a small chance of surviving) and one who said soldiers get already more praise than they deserved.

 

Go back and read the original discussion. It was never about whether the government were right to send people to any individual specific war or not. It was about the individual members of the armed forces themselves and whether they should be praised or not for making sacrifices to keep us protected and safe the same way current NHS workers are during an infectious disease pandemic.

Edited 29 April 2020 by Sampson

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

Think you are conferring the act of war and its repercussions onto an individual though. Joining the armed forces, not dissimilar to joining the health service, has the opportunity to be morally and ethically a minefield on an individual basis.

The fact that decisions taken by those that govern/control the armed or health service are later judged to be ill informed or worse, nefarious, is not a direct matter for the individual.

...that all sounds a bit "just following orders" to me, and that particular discussion is one weighted by some very interesting history. I mean, yeah, governments are certainly the ones making the big decisions that are going to result in those on the ground getting their hands dirty, but I think my point stands that an individual can choose not to be involved in them at all by not getting involved in that line of work in the first place - so I think there is at least some burden of responsibility there.

 

2 hours ago, Sampson said:

Of course not- but again, that's the decision of politicians, not soldiers. You're talking about something entirely different - you're talking about wars as an abstract concept which had nothing to do with the subject- the subject was about the ordinary people who are members of the armed forces who have to live them.

 

Innocent men may have died in WW1 needlessly, but that is not the fault of the individual soldiers over the government. In fact I can't think of many people from history we're indebted to than those who had to live the trenches and going over the top.

 

Our intervention in Yugoslavia in the late 90s/early 00s for example almost certainly saved more lives than were killed.

 

And the soldiers who had to go into a foreign country and put their own lives at risk to help stop racial cleansing and genocide, even though they knew it might involve killing other people - they are certainly worth the same praise as NHS workers trying to save lives during pandemics of infections diseases or firefighters running into fires to save people.

 

People join the armed forces because they want to save and protect people and it's a job that we certainly should be heavily indebted to the ordinary people who do it just as we are our NHS workers or fire fighters. Trying to diminish what the actual soldiers on the ground do because some politicians above started some wars you perceive as unjust absolutely is heartless.

See above for the first part.

 

As for the latter part about various wars that might or might not have been justified...well, that's a prickly discussion in of itself and purely down to the individual about how they define a justified war - numbers, morality, a combination of the two, or whatever. It's very subjective, which is why my own take is certainly only an opinion.

 

NB.

 

On 28/04/2020 at 21:06, leicsmac said:

As much as that particular piece of realpolitik is no doubt true, where exactly does it leave the future? It doesn't sound like anywhere good.

I would like an answer to this unanswered question, if you have the time.

[fuchsntf]

23 hours ago, murphy said:

I think we owe our armed forces a huge debt of gratitude and it is one of my particular bugbears with the left that they are often so reluctant to acknowledge this.

I am left...I Don t deny it. but I also Dont either deny conservative/labour politicians misuse,abuse of the services or the situation,with conflicts After WWII.

 

Leaving our Armed forces,without necessary fighting or protective equipment...Or all past & present governments forgetting All and every Single man or Woman who have served,After they retired,demobbed,or Left the services.

No automatic After-Service support,for nationals,or Foreign UK forces that served...

Diabolical....Whether your politics Fall to the Left or to the Right...

Ditto Now for NHS-personelle..!!

 

To Finish off,I had nothing but disdain for M.Thatcher ,more so Now B.Johnson...That said has a Socialist leaning person,I have felt/feel the same for any Labour-Party leader,or opposition leader especially since Blair and his cronies..

There has been a few Politicians who I had some sympathies who pulled back from Major Office and either resigned or stayed in local consituencies.

It Really hasnt mattered for forty years because other than odd vists,to my Home Country I have hardly had any serious  leanings either way...!!!

It just pains to see 'my' Country stagnate and Not Advance socially,in Work or on the streets or Social infrastructure.Plus for a Country that sent its Armed Forces World wide, leave these peoples After services-rendered has insignificants..!!! Since especially the 1980s...Oh Yes like also the NHs, After politicians have chest thumped how proud they are,but not delivered where it matters....After People have Served the Government & society...!!

Edited 30 April 2020 by fuchsntf

[Sampson]

35 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...that all sounds a bit "just following orders" to me, and that particular discussion is one weighted by some very interesting history. I mean, yeah, governments are certainly the ones making the big decisions that are going to result in those on the ground getting their hands dirty, but I think my point stands that an individual can choose not to be involved in them at all by not getting involved in that line of work in the first place - so I think there is at least some burden of responsibility there.

 

See above for the first part.

 

As for the latter part about various wars that might or might not have been justified...well, that's a prickly discussion in of itself and purely down to the individual about how they define a justified war - numbers, morality, a combination of the two, or whatever. It's very subjective, which is why my own take is certainly only an opinion.

 

NB.

 

I would like an answer to this unanswered question, if you have the time.

 

You're assuming that soldiers on the ground have equal knowledge to the government which of course isn't anything like true and that there aren't punishments involved to those who go AWOL.

 

During the Iraq war absolutely no one knew what this evidence of weapons of mass destruction was and no one could possibly know whether their government lied to them or not. However, if Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was prepared to use them he could have potentially killed tens of millions of people. We now know he didn't but no soldier at the time could have known that. And it's the families of the soldiers who were killed in Iraq who tend to be the most irate of any over that war.

 

Are you suggesting then people should have left their post in WW1 because everyone knew it was a pointless war if leaving your post meant your fellow soldiers would be shot for example? 

 

You're turning the morale choices of soldiers into binary choices when they really aren't. And you're also assuming that these soldiers have that information at the time through hindsight when they don't.

 

The point is that people don't just join the armed forces to kill people and it's a bit weird you care more about picking up on that which is something the overwhelming majority of the armed forces will never have to do thankfully, over praising them.

 

Also worth remembering as to whether the armed forces do that - that Sweden and Switzerland are the only 2 western Europe nations who still have mandatory conscription to the armed forces - exactly because they're neutral countries and so need greater protection.

 

With regards to your other point  - I don't see it as realpolitik and didn't mean it in that sense. My point was it's easy for Western countries to say look how good it is that small, very rich western countries like Norway or the Netherlands practice green energy or have more holidays for workers. But that is much harder for very large quickly developing countries like China, India, Russia or Brazil to and I can certainly see why those countries would see it as us trying to hold them back when western countries tell them to cut their development which is helping hundreds of millions if not billions get pulled out of poverty given those countries still have literal slums and shanty towns. I don't think it's a case of realpolitik, just that it's easy for rich western countries to sit here and say we need to scale back carbon emissions, but it's not such an easy thing for developing nations to either do or explain to their people who've seen their fellow countrymen get a better life, that that's why they're doing it.

 

My point was that it was an easy thing to say in the UK but it's a global issue and for most countries in the world it isn't as simple as that. China and India especially omit a massive proportion of the world's carbon emissions and it's about them making much more difficult decisions than we have to. Where that leaves us? I don't know, because I don't know the intricacies of the Chinese or Indian situation. I wasn't trying to answer the question was just questioning a leading question that made it look like there were easy answers.

Edited 29 April 2020 by Sampson

[leicsmac]

17 minutes ago, Sampson said:

 

You're assuming that soldiers on the ground have equal knowledge to the government which of course isn't anything like true and that there aren't punishments involved to those who go AWOL.

 

During the Iraq war absolutely no one knew what this evidence of weapons of mass destruction was and no one could possibly know whether their government lied to them or not. However, if Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was prepared to use them he could have potentially killed tens of millions of people. We now know he didn't but no soldier at the time could have known that. And it's the families of the soldiers who were killed in Iraq who tend to be the most irate of any over that war.

 

Are you suggesting then people should have left their post in WW1 because everyone knew it was a pointless war if leaving your post meant your fellow soldiers would be shot? 

 

You're turning the morale choices of soldiers into binary choices when they really aren't. And you're also assuming that these soldiers have that information at the time through hindsight when they don't.

 

The point is that people don't just join the armed forces to kill people and it's a bit weird you care more about picking up on that which is something the overwhelming majority of the armed forces will never have to do thankfully, over praising them

 

 

With regards to your other point  - I don't see it as realpolitik and didn't mean it in that sense. My point was it's easy for Western countries to say look how good it is that small, very rich western countries like Norway or the Netherlands practice green energy or having more holidays for workers. But that is much harder for very large quickly developing countries like China, India or Brazil to and I can certainly see why those countries would see it as us trying to hold them back when western countries tell them to cut their development which is helping hundreds of millions if not billions get pulled out of poverty given those countries still have literal slums and shanty towns. I don't think it's a case of realpolitik, just that it's easy for rich western countries to sit here and say we need to scale back carbon emissions, but it's not such an easy thing for developing nations to either do or explain to their people who've seen their fellow countrymen get a better life, that that's why they're doing it.

 

My point was that it was an easy thing to say in the UK but for most countries in the world it idnt as simple as that. And China and India especially omit a massive proportion of the world's carbon emissions and it's about them making much more difficult decisions than we have to.

You'll get no disagreement that the following orders moral dilemma is not a straight binary, and the dilemma it poses is pretty close to unsolvable. Don't think that I'm without sympathy for those who have to make that choice, but I will still maintain that those soldiers in the present day, as they are not conscripts, don't have to make that choice at all - other career paths are available.

 

With respect to what China and India might do in terms of emissions - I'm not really interested in accusations of hypocrisy and "do as I say, not as I do", as accurate as they may be. I'm interested in the very real consequences of what will happen if the Chinese and other nations choose to continue with rapid industrialisation in a way that massively increases a carbon footprint, whether in the name of lifting lots of their own population out of poverty or not.

 

So, once again: if they do, where does that leave the future?

 

 

Edited 29 April 2020 by leicsmac

[Sampson]

18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

You'll get no disagreement that the following orders moral dilemma is not a straight binary, and the dilemma it poses is pretty close to unsolvable. Don't think that I'm without sympathy for those who have to make that choice, but I will still maintain that those soldiers in the present day, as they are not conscripts, don't have to make that choice at all - other career paths are available.

 

With respect to what China and India might do in terms of emissions - I'm not really interested in accusations of hypocrisy and "do as I say, not as I do", as accurate as they may be. I'm interested in the very real consequences of what will happen if the Chinese and other nations choose to continue with rapid industrialisation, whether in the name of lifting lots of their own population out of poverty or not.

 

So, once again: if they do, where does that leave the future?

 

 

But we need armed forces though, a world without them protecting us would certainly be a much scarier one. just as we need police or NHS workers - so some people do *have* to make that career path and you're bizarrely judging people for one of the most fundamental roles in society when most just want to help and protect people - and I really don't understand the reason why other than some kind of sense of morale superiority. You can bet we'd have conscription if no one joined it.

 

Again, how does that compare to policemen working in anti-terrorist who know they're going to have to kill people based on what the government deems to be a terrorist activity?

 

What would you say if your son or daughter came to tell you they had their heart set on joining the navy or army for example? Would you start lecturing them on it and see them as lacking morals - or would you feel proud of them for doing an incredibly difficult job to try and protect people?

 

Why are you asking a rhetorical question over and over again? No one can know the answer to that, you know very well they can't. I already edited my last post. I wasn't trying to answer anything. I was questioning a leading question making it look like there are easy answers when their really isn't. It leaves us in shit creek of course but so does the alternative to billions of people, so what else do you suggest? It's not as easy a question as you make it seem to the people dying in the slums of China or India as the industrialisation there has extended of billions of lives through bringing them out of poverty. Any government who reverses that will likely just face rebellions and get kicked out of office so how much they can even change in the first place no one can answer.

Edited 29 April 2020 by Sampson

[leicsmac]

37 minutes ago, Sampson said:

But we need armed forces though, a world without them protecting us would certainly be a much scarier one. just as we need police or NHS workers - so some people do *have* to make that career path and you're bizarrely judging people for one of the most fundamental roles in society when most just want to help and protect people - and I really don't understand the reason why other than some kind of sense of morale superiority. You can bet we'd have conscription if no one joined it.

 

Again, how does that compare to policemen working in anti-terrorist who know they're going to have to kill people based on what the government deems to be a terrorist activity?

 

What would you say if your son or daughter came to tell you they had their heart set on joining the navy or army for example? Would you start lecturing them on it and see them as lacking morals in some areas?

 

Why are you asking a rhetorical question over and over again? No one can know the answer to that, you know very well they can't. I already edited my last post. I wasn't trying to answer anything. I was questioning a leading question making it look like there are easy answers when their really isn't. It leaves us in shit creek of course but so does the alternative to billions of people, so what else do you suggest? It's not as easy a question as you make it seem to the people dying in the slums of China or India as the industrialisation there has extended of billions of lives through bringing them out of poverty. Any government who reverses that will likely just face rebellions and get kicked out of office so how much they can even change in the first place no one can answer.

You're probably right in that the world today as it is probably would be scarier without a UK military, but who knows? That doesn't mean one has to like that this is the way of the world and/or not think that one day it might be able to be different - or indeed hold an opinion on the necessity of lack of it all.

 

WRT anti-terrorist police - well, pretty much the same as above given that they have the same chance that orders might come down from on high and result in them having to kill someone. It's a filthy world but I don't buy that that is inevitable nor that it always has to be that way. If a kid of mine wanted to join the military, I'd respect their freedom of choice (even if I didn't agree with it), bid them good luck and then hope like hell that they came back in one piece both mentally and physically.

 

As for the bolded, well, the other bolded part is the answer - I wanted an admission that something that resulted in dire consequences for a great many people was deemed to be near-inevitable due to "human nature" (or the nature of at least some humans in this case), and thus, perhaps, given that viewpoint, I'm not actually the biggest misanthrope around these parts? If that seems overly petty, I apologise, but with respect, I didn't start the fire and being labelled as something that I am not (and that I detest) is something that rather irked me.

 

Of course the matter isn't morally simple, but logistically it is very simple indeed - either the BRICS nations develop in a sustainable way over a longer time and risk harm to some of their populations, or they develop much faster using non-renewable emission tech and risk harm to many many more people (including their own) further in the future. I certainly agree there are no easy answers - but I'm not the one suggesting that the former of those choices is practically a fait accompli.

Edited 29 April 2020 by leicsmac

[LiberalFox]

I think the main difference is that armed forces and to an extent the police are capable of causing harm in a far more obvious way than other public services. 

[Toddybad]

Absolutely ****ing sick of Morrisons staff dancing in groups on Facebook.

[Wymsey]

The saucepan banging by households for the Thursday annual NHS appreciation is quite irksome. As if some the households using them are competing against each other to make the loudest noise.

 

Just a round of applause is fine.

[Webbo]

3 hours ago, Wymsey said:

The saucepan banging by households for the Thursday annual NHS appreciation is quite irksome. As if some the households using them are competing against each other to make the loudest noise.

 

Just a round of applause is fine.

There's somebody in our street who plays an electric guitar.

[Corky]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

There's somebody in our street who plays an electric guitar.

Eric Clap-ton