.
''The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war,no matter how justified,shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation'' --George Washington--
Hi, Got the same in my inbox this am from my CO! Did you see the 18doughtystreet,com article on the falklands? A good minute of footage of rapier being loaded!
Just off to show my father-in-law and his son these pictures, they may have trouble understanding them as they are either serving or ex-marines. Never mind I'll try explaining them, may take a while!
These e-mails are doing the rounds, I was sent them by serving soldiers in Iraq, it does not mean any disrespect to the Marines, I have freinds who are Marines,its what we do `take the piss` I have civvie mates who cant understand my mentality they never will, they have never served.
I disagree with Mr. Herman Wouk's discussion of the "moral dilemma" of the Pueblo case (February 8).
There is no moral dilemma in judging that case. Commander Lloyd M. Bucher has been called, correctly, "a hero among heroes." He should have been given the Congressional Medal of Honor first, and been questioned afterward.
If there are any questions of national dishonor--and there are--it was brought on us by the authors of our disgraceful foreign policy with its grotesquely irrational state of cold war or hot peace. Our armed forces today are given more instructions on how "not to provoke" the enemy than on how (and when) to defend themselves. If a miserable little savage country like North Korea attacked a giant like the United States, what was it counting on? On exactly what happened and is happening now: on the moral disintegration of U.S. political leadership, which would push appeasement so far as to abandon the men of the Pueblo under fire, without arms, assistance or instructions, then attempt to make Commander Bucher the scapegoat on the grounds of an immoral and irrational military code.
That code ignores the difference between a voluntary statement and a forced statement, thus endorsing the moral premises of thugs who regard torture as a legitimate method of inquiry.
We recognize the difference in our criminal law--see the Supreme Court decisions which invalidate the confessions of criminals, if obtained by pressure. Yet we do not grant the same consideration to the protectors of our country when they are in the hands of savage killers.
When we ascribe validity to the "confessions" of men imprisoned by communist governments (Russian, North Korean, North Vietnamese or any other)--when we do it in spite of the fact that the unspeakable atrocities practiced by such governments are a matter of record--we endorse and invite the atrocities.
This endorsement has been the moral crime of the West--ever since the "trial" of Cardinal Mindszenty--this evasive tolerance which grants the status of a trial to the spectacle of dazed, tortured victims reciting extorted "confessions."
Allow me to suggest a simple way to put an end to that particular kind of outrage.
Let the U.S. government publicly order our armed forces to say, sign, admit or confess anything demanded of them when they are seized by an enemy (i.e., communist or totalitarian) power. (This would not apply to divulging actual military secrets, but only to lying about political-ideological issues.) Let the government declare to the world that we will not accept as true, valid or meaningful any statement extorted by force, i.e., any statement made by an American prisoner in a foreign country--and that all such statements are repudiated in advance, in his name, by his government.
This would re-establish the moral meaning of freedom and of truth. It would put an end to the martyrdom of innocent victims, to the kind of ordeal Commander Bucher and his men had to endure.
In principle, this was the policy adopted by our government to obtain their release. Let this become our official policy, to be practiced by individual prisoners--as a proper expression of contempt for the social systems ruled, not by reason, but by brute force.
If Commander Bucher is penalized in any way whatever for the proper moral choice he had the courage to make, thereby saving 82 young lives, then this country will be truly and totally dishonored. But I trust that the American people (including our Congress and our new Commander-In-Chief) will not permit this to happen."
Ayn Rand author of ‘Atlas Shrugged’ published in ‘The Objectivist’ of February 1969.
Ayn Rand is saying that captured servicemen should say whatever they like because the fact that they are held by savages renders any statement they make literally meaningless.
There is nothing new in the Iranian hostage affair - similar spectacles have happened repeatedly since WW2.
It is a symptom of totalitarianism. So no criticism should be levelled at the behaviour of our service personel whether they are detained by these monsters now - or at sometime in the future.
(Hank),Gee, this is terrible Im suprised your Comi Government allow these pinko publications?
ReplyDeleteHi, Got the same in my inbox this am from my CO!
ReplyDeleteDid you see the 18doughtystreet,com article on the falklands? A good minute of footage of rapier being loaded!
Just off to show my father-in-law and his son these pictures, they may have trouble understanding them as they are either serving or ex-marines. Never mind I'll try explaining them, may take a while!
ReplyDeleteThese e-mails are doing the rounds, I was sent them by serving soldiers in Iraq, it does not mean any disrespect to the Marines, I have freinds who are Marines,its what we do `take the piss` I have civvie mates who cant understand my mentality they never will, they have never served.
ReplyDeleteWill see if I can find the clip on Doughty Street St Crispin, you never know it could be me?
ReplyDeleteThere are historical parallels:
ReplyDelete"Dear Sir:
I disagree with Mr. Herman Wouk's discussion of the "moral dilemma" of the Pueblo case (February 8).
There is no moral dilemma in judging that case. Commander Lloyd M. Bucher has been called, correctly, "a hero among heroes." He should have been given the Congressional Medal of Honor first, and been questioned afterward.
If there are any questions of national dishonor--and there are--it was brought on us by the authors of our disgraceful foreign policy with its grotesquely irrational state of cold war or hot peace. Our armed forces today are given more instructions on how "not to provoke" the enemy than on how (and when) to defend themselves. If a miserable little savage country like North Korea attacked a giant like the United States, what was it counting on? On exactly what happened and is happening now: on the moral disintegration of U.S. political leadership, which would push appeasement so far as to abandon the men of the Pueblo under fire, without arms, assistance or instructions, then attempt to make Commander Bucher the scapegoat on the grounds of an immoral and irrational military code.
That code ignores the difference between a voluntary statement and a forced statement, thus endorsing the moral premises of thugs who regard torture as a legitimate method of inquiry.
We recognize the difference in our criminal law--see the Supreme Court decisions which invalidate the confessions of criminals, if obtained by pressure. Yet we do not grant the same consideration to the protectors of our country when they are in the hands of savage killers.
When we ascribe validity to the "confessions" of men imprisoned by communist governments (Russian, North Korean, North Vietnamese or any other)--when we do it in spite of the fact that the unspeakable atrocities practiced by such governments are a matter of record--we endorse and invite the atrocities.
This endorsement has been the moral crime of the West--ever since the "trial" of Cardinal Mindszenty--this evasive tolerance which grants the status of a trial to the spectacle of dazed, tortured victims reciting extorted "confessions."
Allow me to suggest a simple way to put an end to that particular kind of outrage.
Let the U.S. government publicly order our armed forces to say, sign, admit or confess anything demanded of them when they are seized by an enemy (i.e., communist or totalitarian) power. (This would not apply to divulging actual military secrets, but only to lying about political-ideological issues.) Let the government declare to the world that we will not accept as true, valid or meaningful any statement extorted by force, i.e., any statement made by an American prisoner in a foreign country--and that all such statements are repudiated in advance, in his name, by his government.
This would re-establish the moral meaning of freedom and of truth. It would put an end to the martyrdom of innocent victims, to the kind of ordeal Commander Bucher and his men had to endure.
In principle, this was the policy adopted by our government to obtain their release. Let this become our official policy, to be practiced by individual prisoners--as a proper expression of contempt for the social systems ruled, not by reason, but by brute force.
If Commander Bucher is penalized in any way whatever for the proper moral choice he had the courage to make, thereby saving 82 young lives, then this country will be truly and totally dishonored. But I trust that the American people (including our Congress and our new Commander-In-Chief) will not permit this to happen."
Ayn Rand author of ‘Atlas Shrugged’ published in ‘The Objectivist’ of February 1969.
"Say that again"
ReplyDeleteAyn Rand is saying that captured servicemen should say whatever they like because the fact that they are held by savages renders any statement they make literally meaningless.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing new in the Iranian hostage affair - similar spectacles have happened repeatedly since WW2.
It is a symptom of totalitarianism. So no criticism should be levelled at the behaviour of our service personel whether they are detained by these monsters now - or at sometime in the future.
Ok Roger that anon.
ReplyDelete