1. Comment #116061 by jimbob on January 25, 2008 at 12:38 pm

How about George Scales as the first entry?

Other Comments by jimbob

2. Comment #116063 by Ian Bamlett on January 25, 2008 at 12:40 pm

I am conflicted about this.

As someone who sees arbitrary allegience to a flag as not much better that arbitrary allegience to a God, (both being, in almost all cases, a product of the geography of your birth), I can't understand the mindset of the military mind. I'll probably get slammed for that; and rightly so I suppose in many ways.

Still, all the best to them.

Other Comments by Ian Bamlett

3. Comment #116067 by Deepthought on January 25, 2008 at 12:45 pm

I can't understand the military mind either. I find the desire to hurt people so strange I can't even understand people who play football (American). I usually come to the conclusion that the football players have to be somewhat sadistic.

Other Comments by Deepthought

4. Comment #116070 by Aaron on January 25, 2008 at 12:51 pm

Ian Bamlett and Deepthought,

I was in the military. I don't give a fuck about a flag. We put the American flag on our postage stamps which are licked, fondled, burned, scribbled on, etc. Flags are useless. When I was in the military I had an allegience to something much more powerful and dear to me: the defense of the Constitution.

I didn't want to hurt anyone. I just wanted to make sure what is written on that piece of paper isn't ignored.

Other Comments by Aaron

5. Comment #116072 by robotaholic on January 25, 2008 at 12:53 pm

I am equally nonviolent. I don't understand nationalistic pride.

Other Comments by robotaholic

6. Comment #116076 by Deepthought on January 25, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Aaron,
I think that is a far better reason than any form of nationalistic pride or religious reason. If the whole world were to have this outlook there would be almost no war. Well, maybe not because we would start fighting about which constitution the world should support. (Heavy sigh) It's a nice idea though.

Other Comments by Deepthought

7. Comment #116087 by JesperB on January 25, 2008 at 1:22 pm

There is no such thing as a military mind.

I think the target of scorn here should be nationalism.

I'm with Aaron on this one: I didn't join the (in my case danish) military because I thought our flag looks good. I joined because democracy and freedom of expression are privileges worth fighting for.

Had my country had the same name, the same flag and the same population, but not a democratic constitution, I wouldn't have joined, even if 100 big-titted blonde chicks had offered me sexual favors for doing so.

And back to the subject- I'm looking forward to reading the anthology...;)

Other Comments by JesperB

8. Comment #116088 by Ducklike on January 25, 2008 at 1:26 pm

From the look of the web site, it would seem this only concerns the American military; oh well.

All the best anyway.

Other Comments by Ducklike

9. Comment #116089 by gyokusai on January 25, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Yes, I also think it's not about flags or even countries, but for far more valuable things one should fight for and has fought for. And the Constitution was (and is) a good start. I really hope this project will take off.

^_^J.

Other Comments by gyokusai

10. Comment #116090 by Deepthought on January 25, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Perfect! Good reasons I'm convinced. Maybe not enough to join because I would prefer to find a peaceful solution to this stuff, but still you have done better then the kid who cited "wouldn't you want to fight for our wonderful country". I believe that he would also be the first to sign up for a religious crusade as well.

Other Comments by Deepthought

11. Comment #116094 by AshtonBlack on January 25, 2008 at 1:29 pm

I was in the UK Army for 7 1/2 years, with a few tours of some strange and dangerous places. I've got to be honest, I can't remember anyone's motivation for duty being "For Great Britain" or "For Jesus". To me and a LOT of my comrades it was a job to be done. We got paid, signed on the dotted line and "got on with it."

Other Comments by AshtonBlack

12. Comment #116101 by Ian Bamlett on January 25, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Comment #116070 by Aaron:

I didn't want to hurt anyone. I just wanted to make sure what is written on that piece of paper isn't ignored.

That's fair. I expected a bit of a kicking. I still wouldn't put on a uniform and go 'over there' though. I'm only signing up if they are coming 'over here'. I know, 9/11 was over 'here' - not enough for me.

Other Comments by Ian Bamlett

13. Comment #116102 by Deepthought on January 25, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Ian was right about being slammed. I think I've just but my foot in my mouth. Stop making me look foolish! Wahhh. Just kidding :)

AshtonBlack,
I think the US military has realized this. I haven't seen a single army commercial that says "Go fight for your country" but they usually say something about college oppertunities and how strong you will be after joining. Oh, and they also cite that the army helps people in need. So they prefer humanitarian reasons to patriotic ones. I think I prefer those as well.

Other Comments by Deepthought

14. Comment #116110 by wagnerfilm on January 25, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Ducklike, I suspect the reason the focus is on the US military for this book project has to do with the fact the US is the kind of fundamentalist religion-soaked society where "there are no atheists in foxholes" is so casually tossed about as a meme. You probably don't hear the sentiment so much in Europe.

While I haven't served in the military, I admire people who have done so, none of whom I've met have been in it for nationalism or jingoism. However cynical and self-serving the lies are that politicians use in their military misadventures, as far as the rank and file are concerned, it's about holding up principles like the defense of freedom and democracy.

It's also been true that the military has provided job training, financial opportunities, and discipline in the lives of young men and women who wouldn't have had any of those things otherwise.

All of which serves to make me more livid the way Bush has just thrown away the lives of almost 4000 of them in an invasion based on deception and greed.

Other Comments by wagnerfilm

15. Comment #116112 by Steve Zara on January 25, 2008 at 2:01 pm

I don't understand nationalistic pride.

I think I can. I can imagine what it must have felt like being British at the end of World War II, when the majority of the population had experienced hardship in the battle against tyranny.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

16. Comment #116116 by mdowe on January 25, 2008 at 2:23 pm

I don't go in for nationalism, blind obedience to authority, or any such BS. As a general rule, I'm as gentle as they come; however, I understand the military and the military mind just fine. It takes two make peace, but only one to make war. Contrary to what some in the liberal left wing will tell you (a group with which I usually consider myself to be affiliated) some enemies won't compromise, can't be reasoned with, and may well be fanatically dedicated to subjugating or just plain killing you and yours. Unless you want give in, there is only one answer: You shoot them dead, and you do it first -- before they get the chance to do it to you, period. Since their side is probably going to organise, your chances of coming out on top will improve greatly if your side also organises, and so creates a cohesive and disciplined force; one that can act together in a highly coordinated fashion. Thus the military and the military mind. Be glad we have them.

(Of course the downside here is that your side can often be manipulated or subverted into becoming the aggressors.)

Other Comments by mdowe

17. Comment #116119 by Deepthought on January 25, 2008 at 2:37 pm

mdowe,
I get so annoyed when everyone is right all the time. If I were to have someone try to kill me I would, of course, try to get them first. Unfortunately I wouldn't be much good it a fight because my pacifist nature would stop me. What would be better, though, would be to get a policeman in there to arrest them and then subject them to legal processes. I think that reading too much Terry Pratchett has messed up my world view. (read Jingo)

Other Comments by Deepthought

18. Comment #116121 by jimbob on January 25, 2008 at 2:43 pm

As someone who sees arbitrary allegience to a flag as not much better that arbitrary allegience to a God, (both being, in almost all cases, a product of the geography of your birth), I can't understand the mindset of the military mind. I'll probably get slammed for that; and rightly so I suppose in many ways.

Well, I guess when my dad volunteered for the RAF in WWII, he did so because he something of an idea of the "mindset" of uncle Adolf.

When he recounted his experience of seeing Buchenwald a day after it was liberated, he certainly didn't seem to be concluding that his decision to volunteer was some sort of "arbitrary" thing.

Do you think George Scales would agree with you?

Other Comments by jimbob

19. Comment #116122 by monoape on January 25, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Ian Bamlett: "I am conflicted about this. ... as someone who sees arbitrary allegience to a flag as not much better that arbitrary allegience to a God"

I recently emigrated to Australia (didn't work out - now back in England) and attended Australia Day. I didn't get it. We're great because we're Australian? Explain that to me again. Yeah, OK, it's a simple celebration of European settlement on the Australian continent. Isn't *that* more a cause for head hanging? The locals didn't do too well as a result of European invasion, if I understand correctly....

Anything that emphasises nationality (which always equates to ethnicity, colour of skin, colour of religion, even dialect, etc.) can only lead to segregation. It's a no brainer IMVHO.

Other Comments by monoape

20. Comment #116124 by joeyoap on January 25, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Most of the friends I have that joined the military when we were growing up didn't do it out of any loyalty to a flag or any of that BS they did it because in the north of England in the early 80's it was that or the dole.

Other Comments by joeyoap

21. Comment #116125 by righton on January 25, 2008 at 2:52 pm

"I am equally nonviolent. I don't understand nationalistic pride."

F-ing hippies!!!

JK, sort of

Other Comments by righton

22. Comment #116127 by Steve Crawley on January 25, 2008 at 3:05 pm

Having completed 33 year in the US military, my views about why I risked my life for reasons other than immediate self-defense have matured considerably. Like Ian said in his post, it has a lot to do with the geography of your birth. I think most of you would fight to defend yourself and members of your immediate family. The same reason you would do that also explains why you would also fight for your extended family, your local neighborhood, your village, your city, your state, and yes your country.

We all have reasons to rationalize our actions at each level but for the most part it's the belonging to a place and it's values that constitute us as persons. Believe it or not, we have all been brainwashed since birth to be what we are. I am sure some of us wish we could totally detach and reinvent our self awareness, but then we realize, that's all we have and is worth keeping, even while realizing that it is just a product of our birth and our fighting may not even make a difference.

Other Comments by Steve Crawley

23. Comment #116137 by Deepthought on January 25, 2008 at 3:34 pm

I have decided that fourteen year-olds have no place on this thread(esp. after reading Steve Crawley's post). I shall stop posting and just read with interest what everyone has to say.

Other Comments by Deepthought

24. Comment #116140 by Nails on January 25, 2008 at 3:39 pm

Had my country had the same name, the same flag and the same population, but not a democratic constitution, I wouldn't have joined, even if 100 big-titted blonde chicks had offered me sexual favors for doing so.

Fuck me I would!!! Never given that option, unfortunately.

I swore an oath of allegiance to my regiment, queen and country.
I was immensley proud and would do it again.
It's not so much nationistic pride (but I must confess to being proud of being British - maybe I spent too much time with my grandparents as a youngster) as wanting to make a difference.
I saw it as an opportunity to defend my family as well as my way of life, but it never turned out that way.

Still, helluva lot of fun shooting, sleeping rough, runnning myself to death and shouting at people all the time.

Or was that when I got back home.......

Other Comments by Nails

25. Comment #116184 by mdowe on January 25, 2008 at 6:39 pm

RE: 23. Comment #116137 by Deepthought

Relax mate, we were all 14 at one time or another.

Other Comments by mdowe

26. Comment #116215 by dragonfirematrix on January 25, 2008 at 9:37 pm

I was in the military in my twenties.

I was (even then) trying to shed nationalism and force religion because I saw both as to adversarial to reason.

I was brought-up to believe in nationalistic pride and Christian propaganda. I was brought-up in a Baptist home (not exactly a freethinking group).

I am happy to say the above is all behind me now.

"God is Imaginary"

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

27. Comment #116240 by Jamougha on January 26, 2008 at 12:13 am

my impression is that there's a big difference between the motivations of the typical American and British soldier. Most Americans seem to join up and fight for the sake of their country and nationalistic pride. The British soldiers I've spoken to or read from seem to consider it a job like any other.

Other Comments by Jamougha

28. Comment #116243 by Rayven Alandria on January 26, 2008 at 12:41 am

Ian, if some of us didn't have a "military mind" none of you would have the freedom to be who you choose to be. I do not understand the mind of a pacifist, but I respect their right to be one.

I don't care whether you people understand the "military mind"...just make sure you do not disrespect us.

Other Comments by Rayven Alandria

29. Comment #116246 by V1ktor on January 26, 2008 at 2:00 am

Military is not about hurting people, it's about defending our values, defending our existence, and ensuring safety of people. Sometimes the best defense is good offense. I didn't join to get money for college, I didn't join to escape the law...I joined because I wanted to serve the country, people, and our way of life. The flag, old glory, is the symbol of our strength as a nation. When people tell me that I didn't have to join, that someone else would join...I look at them and say, "If everyone would think this way, nobody would join. 'Cuz someone else would."

Other Comments by V1ktor

30. Comment #116248 by Duff on January 26, 2008 at 2:54 am

I "proudly" served during Vietnam. Either that or Canada.

However distasteful a military can be, it is a necessity no great country can be without. Machiavelli put it best when he said if a man is entirely peaceful, a bad guy will come along and cut off his arms.

Other Comments by Duff

31. Comment #116250 by Buddha on January 26, 2008 at 3:25 am

I spent a short time in the British Royal Navy. Again, to bolster some of the comments here, the main motivation for me was to give something back to defend the notions of freedom, fair play and democracy rather than nationalism.

I hope that Pat Tillman's story gets in to the anthology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Tillman

His family suffered some absolutely disgusting treatment from senior officers after his death due to his professed non-belief.

Other Comments by Buddha

32. Comment #116254 by captgridley on January 26, 2008 at 3:43 am

It's all about the dolla-dolla bill ya'll!
In today's military, a lot of kids join up to get paid. It's simple merc work going on. If you think it's not true, just look at the huge bonuses the US Army is having to dish out to entice new recruits. They aren't waving a flag, they are waving Benjamins. Hell, I do it for the money, at least I'm honest. I'm not a door kicker, but I know that by my support actions in the military, people die and I get paid.
I have met a few that are different. A guy I served with, who was born in war torn Vietnam, joined to give back to the country that saved his family. When he joined he didn't even know he would get paid! So there are people who serve with the intention of giving something to the community.

Other Comments by captgridley

33. Comment #116290 by MaxD on January 26, 2008 at 7:22 am

I hate to say it but I think Capt. Gridley is right on the money. About the money. I swear in next week and I have to tell you I was not impressed with the quality or the rationale of my fellow MEPSers. I am going in for a mixture of reasons (the bonuses are certainly one of them though as an officer less than an enlisted person) but one of them is to defend the constitution. The other is because I think the military needs people like me.
I suspect most of the people in here are degree holding and as such would-unless that degree is in social work- score highly on the ABSVAB test and be easy shoe-in's to Officer Candidate school. I wonder how many fewer Abu Gharib's we would have, and other fiasco's besides if our best and our brightest were giving the military their time. Instead of the poor, the uneducated, and the going nowhere. I don't mean to be knocking my fellow enlistees but many of the people I met yesterday have no other opportunity that will offer them half as much as the military can. Its a good deal provided you don't get dead.
Anyway that is the evolution of my opinion on the matter.

Other Comments by MaxD

34. Comment #116449 by Eric Blair on January 26, 2008 at 2:01 pm

I think this project may be misdirected, and the way people here interpret it seems to bear me out. Unless I'm quite off the mark, this isn't about why people serve their country in the military.

The "no atheists in the foxholes" chestnut presumes that, in the face of death (and fear of death), people turn to religion. The book aims to challenge that notion by citing the thoughts of non-believers in such situations.

The first criterion for submitting an entry for this book would be that you were scared sh**less but relied on reason and your own resources to stay focused, rather than praying to a higher being. (If you weren't scared, then the fact you didn't call on God to protect you won't have much impact.)

Obviously, this shouldn't just apply to being under fire in battle -- someone facing a fatal disease may offer just as valid a response.

EB

Other Comments by Eric Blair

35. Comment #116462 by Richard Morgan on January 26, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Deepthought :

I find the desire to hurt people so strange

"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his" -General S. Patton.

I am non-violent, but I do desire to hurt that person who desires to hurt me or mine, if hurting him will prevent him from hurting us.
If you accept that principle (it's called self defence) then you end up having to accept the military and war.


Other Comments by Richard Morgan

36. Comment #116464 by Deepthought on January 26, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Richard Morgan,

I've already been convinced by some of the other people who have already posted. Still, it doesn't help me understand violent sports any better.
Hmmm... If some one were to slowly wean the world of war and violence in gradual stages what would happen? We could start with American Football as a replacement for war and then progress to chess or something similar to remove violence.

Other Comments by Deepthought

37. Comment #116470 by Richard Morgan on January 26, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Deepthought

If some one were to slowly wean the world of war and violence in gradual stages what would happen?

A lovely idea which does you credit.
I am reading (in French) an interesting book by Alain Bentolilia : Le verbe contre la barbarie (The Word versus Violence) (my poor translation).
The subtitle is: Apprendre à nos enfants à vivre ensemble - teaching our children to live together.
The author believes that the use of language avoids the use of violence. And he develops his idea in a very elegant way.
I would be relieved (and surprised) to see American football replaced by chess. But I'm not holding my breath...
Personally, the closest I've come to participating in a violent sport was queuing to buy a bus ticket in Blida, Algeria. Fortunately, we were all winners, and most survived to actually get on the bus.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

38. Comment #116638 by nathan_forst on January 26, 2008 at 10:14 pm

I think that this is a great idea. It will show the evangelicals and people from all faiths that Atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, and humanists are able and willing and ARE fighting to protect our freedoms and liberties. Who ever said that you have to be religious to go to war?

... but in the end, I guess it would help... :p

;)

Other Comments by nathan_forst

39. Comment #116643 by captgridley on January 26, 2008 at 10:50 pm

As for this thread getting misdirected, my point was that there are atheists in foxholes because people join for more simple reasons than religion or patriotism. Over half the idiots I work with have no idea what the Constitution says, let alone what rights it affords them.
As for myself, I figure if I'm going to get paid to die for a crusty old piece of paper, I might as well understand what it is all about. Through this curiosity I not only found pride in fighting for these rights but found how these rights are continually trampled by the "moral and just" (mainly right wing religious folk). Before, I thought religion was benign, even in the military, but after finding RD and all of you guys, I know better. Ok, I got off topic a bit. So I guess my point here is, there are anti-theists in foxholes too.
(who the hell even uses foxholes anymore haha?)

Other Comments by captgridley

40. Comment #116688 by Dinah on January 27, 2008 at 5:57 am

I think the premise lying behind the 'atheists in foxholes' saying is that when anyone finds themself in a life-threatening situation (sinking ship, losing side of battle, earthquake, etc.) they will ask whichever deity they were brought up to believe in to save them. Even if this is true, it does not prove the existence of that particular deity, because if it did, all deities ever prayed to in such circumstances would therefore exist. I read somewhere that the majority of people when faced with the prospect of sudden death cry out for their mothers to help them (regardless of whether the females in question are in a position to render assistance or are even alive). Never having had the misfortune to be under such a threat I am unable to say whether this is the case or not.

Other Comments by Dinah

41. Comment #116698 by sven_der_sar on January 27, 2008 at 7:02 am

Still, it doesn't help me understand violent sports any better.

I'll take a (completely non-violent) shot at that one...
First an evolutionary perspective... well, why do we enjoy chess and other puzzles? I'd put forward the hypothesis that it's a throwback to some primitive evolutionary 'drives' to solve puzzles and find the cheese at the end of the maze. Many of these challenges would have involved physical components as well (evading the predator, catching the prey), and I can see how performing these physical actions (some of which may have been violent in some way) could be 'programmed into us'. My hypothesis is of course that we reproduce those actions (and their rewards in terms of adrenaline etc) in many of our sports.

And now, just to stretch things a little and try and claim some of the 'ephemeral' where it's possibly not due:

- A well planned chess move turning the game your way... holding your nerve - and the bow - to hit the bullseye from 50m... the feeling of connectedness from timing a show jumping jump well... the confidence gained from completing a marathon... the running backhand lob that the other guy can only sit and watch... the well-timed sliding tackle that takes the ball - and with it the striker's legs - away at the last moment... the acutely angled hockey shot - deliberately in off the goalie's helmet... the rampaging football run, perfectly timed to bounce off one defender and over the next... the boxing to and fro, swaying from one punch to land the reply on the point of the chin... ouch :)

So there's my explanation, given as a little bit of a sliding scale :)

Oh, and personally I don't play much higher on this scale than soccer (and yes, mainly cos the ones further along would just get me hurt), but I can definitely understand the allure of pretty much all sports I can think of.

Other Comments by sven_der_sar

42. Comment #116702 by notsobad on January 27, 2008 at 7:22 am

So let me understand this.

They are trying to prove that atheists too join the army to do someone else's bidding under the impression that they are doing it to protect their country and freedom, and that they too did not have anything better to do with their lives and, especially today, because they couldn't get into college or get a proper job?

Also, this makes it seem that atheism is something more than just lack of belief in the unproven.

Other Comments by notsobad

43. Comment #116715 by sanjiv on January 27, 2008 at 8:32 am

The way I understand it, the word Foxhole doesn't just refer to the literal foxhole that military people may find themselves in. A Foxhole to me means being in deep trouble or being troubled by something. It means facing the difficulties of life. Many of us have never been in the military or a literal foxhole, but understand financial foxholes, marital foxholes, career foxholes, love foxholes, etc. Some people do die fighting in these foxholes (suicide). Some come away maimed by the experience while others come away stronger. Why restrict ourselves to the literal military foxhole? All of us clear thinkers have probably had our share of foxholes in life. The point is how did we deal with these foxholes without supernatural assistance? At present, I'm in a foxhole called 'limerence'. Its as difficult to deal with as any military foxhole. Believe me!

Other Comments by sanjiv

44. Comment #116726 by FightingFalcon on January 27, 2008 at 8:51 am

They are trying to prove that atheists too join the army to do someone else's bidding under the impression that they are doing it to protect their country and freedom, and that they too did not have anything better to do with their lives and, especially today, because they couldn't get into college or get a proper job?

I have to severely hold myself back on this one. First, I want you to know that I labeled your post as offensive. It's not only offensive but completely ignorant and moronic.

I'm an Officer in the US Air Force with a BA in Classical History, currently working on my MA in Classical History and will get the USAF to pay for my PhD as well.

A proper job? I guess that's easy for someone to say who never has to put their life on the line for anything. Who's biggest struggle of the day is figuring out what to have for breakfast...

I'm done with this post. If I keep responding I might explode.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

45. Comment #116734 by keith on January 27, 2008 at 9:37 am

Fighting Falcon,

I seem to remember that 'Notsobad' is a contributer who thinks we live in a Matrix-like world that is ostensibly run by governments but is in fact controlled by powerful corporations. The media and military are their unwitting lackeys. Noam Chomsky is the only person to have seen through this conspiracy to The Truth. He has, like Winston Smith, somehow managed to find a crack in this all-enveloping lie.

Anybody who disagrees with this point of view is a capitalist dupe. All you have to remember is to take up a stance that is anti-western in general and anti-American in particular, regardless of the issue. This way you will feel you are sticking up for the underdog (whether he is a fascist or not) and also feel very self-righteous into the bargain.

Sometimes I almost wish western forces would simply stand down and as we were slowly overrun by 'undemocratic' forces, it would be interesting to see who would be the first to ask for our troops back and to see how useful a strategy of unilateral pacifism really is when faced with an opponent who isn't much impressed by it. As someone once said, in a world full of pacifists, all you need is a butter knife to take over that world.

I'm amazed about the people who like to claim that they barely know what anger is and would certainly never want to hurt anyone. Have they never been children? How did their ancestors survive out on the savannah? Is the DNA that codes for aggressive behaviour simply missing from these gentle souls? Or do they just mean that they have decided not to hurt others? This, of course, is different from claiming that you can't understand aggression or violence.

And the people who say "I'm non-violent." Really? In all situations? I too generally hate violence (partly because I'm rubbish at it) but I wouldn't be able to describe myself as the human equivalent of a lamb, since that would be untrue and dishonest. These people might be surprised about what they were capable of if the situation were desperate enough.

Other Comments by keith

46. Comment #116737 by MPhil on January 27, 2008 at 9:51 am

Okay, I'm probably going to be bashed for this one, but here goes.

I know that there can be have been and sometimes are situations where the country one lives in is being attacked by an enemy army, creating battlefields in one's one country. To defend oneself against that - that's absolutely legit. And whoever does this is to be commended. But enlisting in the armed forces is nothing commendable in an by itself.

Let's face it: Mostly (though as I said, there are exceptions), armies have been and are being used to shove one's way of life down other peoples' throats at gunpoint, to secure economic and political interests that infringe the rights of sovereign nations as laid down by several international conventions.

And enlisting when one knows or should know that this is what one is being used is not a commendable thing and deserves no respect IMO.

Iraq is just one example... but a particularly clear one. It doesn't matter whether you think "we're the good guys, they are ruled by a very bad guy, that has to stop"... as long as that country/state/nation qua political body and military machine doesn't attack you, you are committing the "supreme crime", a "crime against mankind". No matter how bad, they're still a sovereign nation. When they really do attack, defense is mandatory and commendable.

Other Comments by MPhil

47. Comment #116740 by Steve Zara on January 27, 2008 at 10:14 am

as long as that country/state/nation qua political body and military machine doesn't attack you, you are committing the "supreme crime", a "crime against mankind". No matter how bad, they're still a sovereign nation.

I profoundly disagree. Nations should not be considered the property of a ruling elite, and people within nations are not their playthings. International Law recognises this in the extreme case where a regime is committing genocide, in which situation foreign armies are permitted to invade to stop the killing.

I don't think International Law is broad enough. I believe that it should allow action even if the situation is not genocide. For example, if a regime is systematically abusing the population of a country, and sanctions have not worked.

I believe this because I believe that people's rights should not depend on accident of birth, such as nationality. I believe people are not the property of rulers.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

48. Comment #116754 by keith on January 27, 2008 at 10:43 am

Mphil,

Okay, I'm probably going to be bashed for this one, but here goes.

Please, no false bravery. The chances of you getting a bashing for being against the Iraq invasion is hardly a minority point of view and you should thus feel on pretty safe ground.

Just two quick points. Your idea of not keeping a standing army and only rustling one up once you're attacked isn't feasible. It takes a long time to prepare for war. This was Britain's problem in WW2. The only reason we survived was that Hitler turned on Russia when he had us pretty much at his mercy. Russia gave us a chance to find our feet.

The second point is that you have a very touching view of the absoluteness of the sovereignty of state. If you stick to this position Hitler, as long as he hadn't invaded the Sudetenland or anywhere else could quite happily have gone on murdering Jews. As long as he stayed within Germany's borders we could have done nothing. For me this isn't acceptable. For you it seems to be the absolute rule.

Other Comments by keith

49. Comment #116759 by MPhil on January 27, 2008 at 10:49 am

I agree that no person is a property.
I agree with permission of intervention in the case of genocide.
And I also agree that people's rights should not depend on accident of birth - but there are still problems.

Who gets to be world police? Where exactly do we draw line? What precise criteria must be met? What is to happen after we went in and got their ruling elite? Will we determine how the country is to be run, will we insert a new ruling elite to our own liking?

I'm not a complete moral relativist, but I'm a moral antirealist (in the sense explained in my discussion with ADH on "Six Reasons to be an atheist"). When you simply want to describe morality, then you have no right to insist on prescriptiveness, and therefore no justification to impose your values on others... when you want prescriptive values, you get all the problems of relativism, in that you would have to justify why you think that your values are better (which of course leads to a regress).

Surely, I wouldn't want a regime abusing its people. But sovereignty is an important thing. Imagine some country or assembly of countries deciding that because of the corruption of American politicans, their acting not in the best interest of the people they are supposed to represent, that this constitutes systematic abuse. Have they a right to invade? Surely not, that's ludicrous.

Also, I think a people has to sort of "grow into" being able to handle the responsibility of being a collection of political agents, the responsibility this entails for everyone. If you just "extract" their leading elite and let them vote for representatives, this will not always lead to better government and a fair distribution of primary rights and goods. If you just impose certain values by instituting a government, you are basically making them your playthings, your property, since you don't give 'em a say.

This is not being condescending - merely acknowledging that with freedom comes responsibility which one cannot just develop overnight. Surely sometimes it might be necessary to intervene (genocide) for example. But should the US have been invaded during the time of segregation but after slavery? Or during the time when they held slaves? Should a hypothetical powerful foreign country which recognizes that slave holding is such systematic abuse have invaded and imposed their values, their culture?

That's another problem: You run the risk of destroying culture, and not only those parts that don't conform to what we think are human rights.

I think it's far more complicated than your post suggests (but I think you are aware of that). And I think it would be such a tremendous responsibility, such a huge call to make that I am not sure anyone can ever have the right to claim to be able to handle it.

Other Comments by MPhil

50. Comment #116762 by MPhil on January 27, 2008 at 10:55 am

Keith,

First, that "no false bravery" was a cheap shot. I'm not simply against the Iraq invasion. I just used it as an example.

Sorry, you're right, I have to rephrase myself. I'm not against having a standing army - but against using it in violation of international treaties. And I've (happily) conceded the genocide case. But as I said, it's much much more complicated where the case is not so clear.
And even with Hitler and the holocaust is wasn't that clear because everybody (in the UK and the US) had known what Hitler said in his speeches, and nearly everyone praised him (see Churchill eg). But it seems they either didn't take it seriously what he said about Jews or didn't care. Add to that of course that they didn't know for a long time exactly what was going on in these concentration camps, or even that there were such institutions for genocide.

Other Comments by MPhil