Author Topic: Generalizing Europeans... (Read 3363 times)

funkedup · « **Reply #45 on:** January 31, 2003, 01:40:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
Dowding - some basic principles...

The Electorate elects.
The Government governs.

Each party appeals to the electorate to say why they should be the party elected. Once that's done, the election takes place, and the winning party becomes the government, and proceeds to govern.

I really don't hold with this belief that the government should consult the electorate upon every issue that arises. The risk to world security posed by Iraq is best assessed by those in the know - the CIA and MI6, and not by a bunch of bleeding heart liberals with multi coloured hair, a nose stud, and an earring in one ear.

Hortlund · « **Reply #46 on:** January 31, 2003, 01:59:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
Hort : http://www.google.com/search?q=UN+Katanga+Sweden

Ahhh CONGO...why didnt you say so?

Anyway, you have your facts completely messed up Straffo. The Swedish army and airforce units that were under UN command had a very very high reputation among the other UN troops.

I would like to say something as to the reasons why there were alleged massacres in Congo. But the combination of these words "africa" "tribal" and "cannibal" makes it impossible to tell that story and remain PC, so MT would come down on me like a ton of bricks and chase me off these boards.

straffo · « **Reply #47 on:** January 31, 2003, 02:50:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
Ahhh CONGO...why didnt you say so?

Anyway, you have your facts completely messed up Straffo. The Swedish army and airforce units that were under UN command had a very very high reputation among the other UN troops.

I would like to say something as to the reasons why there were alleged massacres in Congo. But the combination of these words "africa" "tribal" and "cannibal" makes it impossible to tell that story and remain PC, so MT would come down on me like a ton of bricks and chase me off these boards.

So why was the swede I met so ashamed some 40 year after ?

And I asked some friend from Congo what they though about swedish UN troop ... they put them in the same bag.Helping directly or not Mobutu was not different than the dutch attitude (IMO of course)

SFRT - Frenchy · « **Reply #48 on:** January 31, 2003, 03:01:42 AM »

slurp slurp

Glasses · « **Reply #49 on:** January 31, 2003, 03:18:20 AM »

That picture is so wrong, yet so right.

Hortlund · « **Reply #50 on:** January 31, 2003, 03:35:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
So why was the swede I met so ashamed some 40 year after ?

And I asked some friend from Congo what they though about swedish UN troop ... they put them in the same bag.Helping directly or not Mobutu was not different than the dutch attitude (IMO of course)

Well see the whole Congo situation back then was really screwed up. There were alot of "mini wars" going on at the same time between various tribes, or ethnical groupings or whatever the PC term might be. Back then, (like now) cannibalism was reported from some of these tribes. I e, if they took prisoners, chances were they would eat said prisoners.

Swedish forces were involved in one situation where one of these tribes know for practicing cannibalism had ambushed a Swedish patrol and taken prisoners. When the CO at the scene got information about that, he decided to go into that village and get his guys out.

So the Swedish unit reached the village, and they saw a heap of hands and feet. I kid you not, this is according to the official Swedish AAR. They saw a heap of hands and feet..apparently cannibals dont eat hands or feet (not much meat I suppose). At the same time, they were met by gunfire from the village. A fight broke out, and the Swedes could not call in for airsupport because they didnt know where the Swedish POWs were. Anyway, they cleared the village, and managed to rescue two of the POWs, the rest were dead and half eaten.

Rumor has it the Swedish units stopped taking prisoners from that particular tribe after that day.

Anyway, that war was hell. Everyone was fighting everyone, and it was on a mideaval level of savagery. It was common for UN patrols to walk into certain villages and find half eaten bodies laying around. That took a heavy toll on the soldiers. Especially if the unit had guys missing in action. Of cource it didnt get any better when certain UN allies did the same thing...

As a sidenote, the suicide rate among Swedish UN Congo veterans is absurd, (unofficial numbers are along the lines of 20% of combat veterans).

Personally I have no doubt that the person you talked to (if he was a combat vet from Congo) might have been involved in one or two of these incidents. When I was in the military one of our officers was an old Congo vet, some of the stories he had were simply unbelievable.

beet1e · « **Reply #51 on:** January 31, 2003, 04:13:36 AM »

Dowding/Tronski

I meant what I said, though maybe I was a bit blunt. Dowding, thanks for not calling me a crass buffoon this time.

What I meant was that when we elect a government, we trust them to govern. Often they will make a pig's ear of things, the way Tony Blair's government has. But I don't see that governments should enter into consultation with the electorate at every crisis. This war we're about to have has been on the cards for years. Did Margaret Thatcher call a referendum on whether we should go to war with Argentina over the Falklands in 1982? No.

When I go to a restaurant, I order my food and entrust its preparation to the chef. I do not follow the waiter into the kitchen to ensure that the order is delivered correctly, or stand over the chef/cook telling him how to do his job, because he does it better then me. If the food turns out to be no good, I'll go somewhere else next time.

Was there a referendum about entering into WW2? Did anyone question the need?

Tronski, hehe, I see you mistook me for a liberal/pacifist because of what has gone before.

Dowding - have you ever seen the film "The Remains of the Day" with Anthony Hopkins, Emma Thompson, Hugh Grant, James Fox and Christopher Reeve before his accident? One of the best films I ever saw in my life. Check out the scene in which Spencer asks Stevens (Hopkins) questions about politics, study Stevens' reaction, listen to what Spencer says afterwards, and you will have a measure of what I'm saying in this thread. The film is set in a stately home, with the build up to WW2 as a backdrop.

Dowding · « **Reply #52 on:** January 31, 2003, 05:05:03 AM »

Quote

Dowding, thanks for not calling me a crass buffoon this time.

Anytime.

WW2 and the Falklands are incomparable to this new war. The former followed the delivery of an ultimatum that was clearly stated, clearly delivered and clearly verifiable. The Falklands was the defence of Crown territory and automatically permitted under international law.

This new Gulf war is neither.

Quote

Was there a referendum about entering into WW2? Did anyone question the need?

Exactly. The fact that a great majority of the public is questioning the need speaks volumes.

Quote

When I go to a restaurant, I order my food and entrust its preparation to the chef. I do not follow the waiter into the kitchen to ensure that the order is delivered correctly, or stand over the chef/cook telling him how to do his job, because he does it better then me. If the food turns out to be no good, I'll go somewhere else next time.

This implies there should be no critical analysis of a goverment's actions between terms, or in your analogy, between meals. That just cannot be allowed to happen. The checks and balances have to be in place. Most of the time, government can be allowed to get on with things - but in important, geopolitical decisions, public opinion has to be considered.

For that reason, it is the goevernment's responsibility to convince the electorate that a course of action is necessary, even if it is undesirable. They have to make their case with verifiable evidence.

beet1e · « **Reply #53 on:** January 31, 2003, 07:15:58 AM »

Dowding,

I appreciate your point of view, which is not mutually exclusive of my own. As to earlier conflicts being unopposed by the public, well one factor was that people were simply unaware of the horror and atrocity that war can bring. No TV pictures back then.

Of course, I agree that the public should be allowed to express publicly their disagreement with the government of the day. We live in a democracy. We do not wish to live in a totalitarian state like Iraq, where such freedom of expression is forbidden, with transgression punishable by death.

But regarding your view that the government must present verifiable evidence... I cannot agree with that. On other issues yes, but not with war because so much of what is going on has to remain secret. The CIA/MI6 know far more than you or I could imagine. Indeed, Tony Blair made an appeal to MI6 to release certain information so that he could bolster his case, but organisations like that are reluctant to comply with such requests.

I don't want to go back to the days of a powerful but unelected body bringing pressure to bear upon the government in order to control its formulation of policy. You're too young to remember Labour in the 1970s; I am not. Tory PM Ted Heath lost an election whose campaign was fought on the manifesto "Who Governs the Country?". When Labour came to "power" (minority government), no-one in the Cabinet could so much as fart without getting TUC approval. The government was like a lap dog to the Trades Union Congress, and it was an outrage. I didn't vote Labour, but I sure as hell did not vote TUC. But they were a powerful group who could initiate labour strikes and bring the country to a halt, and thus wielded great power. Hehe, *she* put a stop to that, beginning in 1979.

So demonstrate as you wish, wave banners, stand outside the House of Commons and yell through loudhailers - all fine by me. Sometimes the government HAS to respond.

But I do not want to see a process in which the government has to submit its case to a panel of pontificating, purple-haired, pacifist pinkos. We had a lot of that crap in the 1970s. Beer and sandwiches at Number 10?

Give me a freaking break.

Gunthr · « **Reply #54 on:** January 31, 2003, 07:31:23 AM »

Quote

Dowding - have you ever seen the film "The Remains of the Day" with Anthony Hopkins, Emma Thompson, Hugh Grant, James Fox and Christopher Reeve before his accident? One of the best films I ever saw in my life. Check out the scene in which Spencer asks Stevens (Hopkins) questions about politics, study Stevens' reaction, listen to what Spencer says afterwards, and you will have a measure of what I'm saying in this thread. The film is set in a stately home, with the build up to WW2 as a backdrop. - Beet1e

I agree. Outstanding in every way. Hopkins was absolutely superb in this. Very memorable film.

Hiker · « **Reply #55 on:** January 31, 2003, 09:00:31 AM »

Ah, lovely!

As always the discussions turn into a beerbrawl "My country is stronger than yours", "No, my country kicks your country´s ass"...

Booooooooring!

But, why not join in!

Why where there any Swedish troops in Congo anyway in the 60´s? Could it have been the result of European imperialism, and even if Congo were ex-Belgian I somehow come to think of French imperialism. But Im sure those islanders are glad U tested your nukes at their place in stead of just north of Paris or in the Alps. And Northern Africa surely reminds your paras with sweet, gentle, loving feelings...

And yes, I´ve met Swedish Congo vets who not were happy about what they had done. Reason: They were killing guys armed with spears and shields, using machineguns and napalm. But as one of them said, they would most certainly have killed you if they got close enough. No point in boasting about killing a crippled and blind choir-boy, even if he really tries to kill you and you have no alternative than to kill him back to stop him, is there? (Although some still are proud of doing such things...)

I dont think any of us can say "My country is without blame", Im not proud of Swedish neutrality during 2nd, however, reading books about the subject has made me understand why Sweden stayed neutral.

But again, its easy to complain when the dust has settled, isnt it?

Sincerely

Hiker

Dowding · « **Reply #56 on:** January 31, 2003, 09:32:46 AM »

They had seen the brutality of war when it came to the Falklands. People had seen what had happened in WW2. Only 10 years before the US was very publically humbled in a god awful war in some far off place. There was plenty of camera footage and accounts of that.

But there was no outcry. No demands for clarity. Everyone could see it had to be done.

There's no point in getting into another 'Britain was very nearly, but not quite taken over by communists in the 1970s' discussion. I think we both know where we stand.

This is not about the polarisation of the political spectrum - the people who are agnostic about this war come from all walks of life and hold all kinds of political views. Yet they share the same unease. Why is that?

Rude · « **Reply #57 on:** January 31, 2003, 10:08:10 AM »

What qualifies the general public to make foreign policy decisions?

midnight Target · « **Reply #58 on:** January 31, 2003, 10:22:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rude
What qualifies the general public to make foreign policy decisions?

Are you implying that the public shouldn't get involved?

Batz · « **Reply #59 on:** January 31, 2003, 10:42:53 AM »

I think what hes saying is that the gen public doesnt have and it some instances cant have all the information necessary to make an informed descision. Especially in regards to foreign policy.

In America polititians are elected to lead not lick their finger and stick it into the air and go which ever way the wind is blowing. They should go out and build support for their positions but they shouldnt shackle themselves to doing only whats popular.

Whether they actually do this or not can be debated.

Politicians can then be held accountable at the next election.

Ideally a well informed electorate that is active and involved would be a good thing.

But given the variety of "propaganda" and miss information put out on all sides you cant expect that top happen.

Should an elected politician only "do" what is popular?

Should citizens ultimately influence and "effect" political descisions even when they maybe "uninformed"?