Marcarc
Forum Elite
Posts: 1870
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:10 pm
Oh, I know you were referring to the soldier, that was pretty obvious, I wasn't, hopefully that was obvious.<br />
<br />
I checked into some of those links but didn't really find what I was looking for. I certainly never said canadians were bad soldiers- far from it, likewise I never stated that they were fundamentally different from any other military in the world, so let's keep the discussion to things I actually said. I certainly never said that 'all' soldiers are like that, or even that they are like that all the time, my father was in the air force and I have the highest respect for him. I have a lot of respect for many people in the military, my point is concerning what the military endevour IS. Look at the research done in the states and britain between the two world wars, a huge problem in the first world war was that a huge number of soldiers simply refused to kill. They would shoot twenty feet up in the air or anyplace there were no soldiers. In order to train people to kill you have to turn them into 'nuts' (a generic term but I should have explained it more). Even up to the second world war any british soldier will tell you that one of the primary duties of an officer was to quell desertion by any means possible, and this was sometimes a full time job. If you could show some UN links where canada is singled out as being better at peacekeeping than others I'd be interested. Just because an individual does something remarkable doesn't give their country a right to ride their coattails. To me a sniper killing the taliban does not earn 'more respect' in fact to me quite the opposite, although I realize they are 'doing a job.' Or an article where a leading publication, say in Cyprus or Germany, where Canada is singled out as being more effective than other nations. <br />
<br />
The notion that canadian soldiers have somehow made canada what it is is absurd. There was never any threat against canada in either of the world wars, not since 1812 when the british did most of the defending have we been fighting defensively. Germany never even declared war on canada in the second world war. And of many soldiers weren't soldiers at all but new recruits sent straight to the front lines. Any serious look at peacekeeping missions or the cold war will show that far from defending us from 'others' they were used to quash political discussion at home, smashing the communist party and generally any group speaking for average canadians.<br />
<br />
I have never read Romeo Dallaires' book but I watched much of his testimony, and this shows my point exactly. Why would you send your forces to a place where you are not even allowed to keep the peace? They were forbidden to 'save' anybody through force, which is ironic considering the force that was sometimes shown to be necessary in Europe. Blaming the UN or the government is of course quite correct, but militaries are always at the bequest of their state. There is virtually no overseas mission which has served the interests of 'defending' canadians, only defending the cold war propagandists, something even our leaders discovered and opted out of on several occasions. This is why I support neutrality, simply because in most of canadians initiatives of late we are the aggressors. And often peacekeeping missions have shown to simply elongate conflicts. As they say, a big step toward dismantling terrorism is stop contributing to it.<br />
This is all from research since it has been over ten years since I've read a newspaper and I've never watched television news. Anybody will tell you that 'hazing' in the military is pretty systemic, and often brutal, I know that from experience as well as research. Rigid hierarchies are like that, even capitalism, why else would people sacrifice virtually everything to 'get ahead' even after their basic needs are met? I'm not going to say everything is about power, but just download any war videos from Iraq and the soldiers will tell you about 'the rush'. This is the kind of thing that the military enforces because it's the only way, in addition to brainwashing, to get somebody to kill another.<br />
<br />
I'm not going to impugn somebody's motive in joining the forces thinking it the highest calling. That's an individual choice and they are free to make it. I would dispute it as being the best way to 'make a difference', there are far more NGO's in the world specifically motivated to specific goals rather than the quixotic life in the military where you have absolutely no control over your most fundamental decisions. <br />
<br />
Your paragraph on peace keeping and peace enforcement is interesting, but needs serious study since you don't specifically define each. I'd take issue that one's self respect derives from respect of ones enemy. I work with many veterans and often discuss thier WW2 adventures, and quite often, depending on your duties, you don't even see your enemy. Likewise the whole notion of an enemy seems over-glorified movie stuff, many people were forced into the war simply because it was the only way to survive due to the depression. Here in Kitchener many people signed up and many had relatives in germany, so didn't really see them as enemies. They simply had no choice. For others, the war propagandists were so pervasive that I would argue that 'respect for an enemy' determines one self respect. Historically, wars have been impossible without propaganda (recently anyway). Turning the enemy into a monster is the most obvious way of getting people to oppose another. Artwork usually caricurizes features, and usually ridicules them as well. Watch some of those old bugs bunny cartoons. Since you didn't define peacekeeping or peaceenforcement I really don't know how the self respect thing enters into it.
