I agree that coalition troops are war criminals and are murdering the people they kill in this war. But I think it is necessary and right to distinguish between this type of murder where reponsibility, knowledge and understanding are shared and, say, hot headed or premeditated murder carried out by a lone person or small group. For two reasons - apportioning moral blame must take into account the fact that the people in our armed forces will face serious potentially life altering reprisals if they do not follow orders, and also because the decision of theirs that led to join up and also to Iraq is far removed from the act of murder...whereas in Tony Blair's case, the decision that led to the deaths of Iraqi's is right next to the murder of Iraqi's - one thing clearly and simply led to the other in his case. He is more to blame.
And also, is it true that if Britain was to be attacked by people who aim to change your entire way of culture and way of life then you would want to fight the aggressors yourself and would hope that other would too? War is not always wrong - it is always sad, terrifying and unpleasant, but it is sometimes the right thing to do. Rarely, and not in the case of our invasion of Iraq. It is not always a bad thing to decide to fight. Perhaps they foolishly hoped that their government would use their force in a responsible and moral manner.
And, a lot of Army recruits come from extremely poor area's and from people who join the army because it is the only way they can escape a life they don't want.
No, my heart isn't bleeding for the coalition troops in Iraq - they are wrong to be there, they could refuse to go and they have not chosen to do that or are too weak willed to make that choice. But theirs is a particular kind if wrong and ultimately most of the blame for the deaths of Iraqi's ends up on Tony Blair's and Bush's shoulders.
And anyway, it is not fair to point to one or two soldiers and blame them for the deeds of thousands of soldiers and many politicians. This is a picture of two men, not thousands.
I think its better to focus on the biggest villains - Blair and Bush, and not try to single out a few soldiers to bully.
Comments
Hide the following comment
well...
07.04.2003 23:34
And also, is it true that if Britain was to be attacked by people who aim to change your entire way of culture and way of life then you would want to fight the aggressors yourself and would hope that other would too? War is not always wrong - it is always sad, terrifying and unpleasant, but it is sometimes the right thing to do. Rarely, and not in the case of our invasion of Iraq. It is not always a bad thing to decide to fight. Perhaps they foolishly hoped that their government would use their force in a responsible and moral manner.
And, a lot of Army recruits come from extremely poor area's and from people who join the army because it is the only way they can escape a life they don't want.
No, my heart isn't bleeding for the coalition troops in Iraq - they are wrong to be there, they could refuse to go and they have not chosen to do that or are too weak willed to make that choice. But theirs is a particular kind if wrong and ultimately most of the blame for the deaths of Iraqi's ends up on Tony Blair's and Bush's shoulders.
And anyway, it is not fair to point to one or two soldiers and blame them for the deeds of thousands of soldiers and many politicians. This is a picture of two men, not thousands.
I think its better to focus on the biggest villains - Blair and Bush, and not try to single out a few soldiers to bully.
Liberty