Not appropriate for a soldier?

[Graham]

Graham, I find myself in the uncomfortable position of having to disagree with both the "High Protector of the Forum" and also someone whose views I have come to respect as they, mostly, mirror my own. However, in this case I have to disagree. You claim to not want to have your "freedoms, beliefs, or conscience compromised or dictated by other men". I can understand and symathize with that, but IMHO without Ackwell and all the others that have dedicated themselves to military service, or have died in the past defending our freedoms, we would have our freedoms, beliefs, etc. much more compromised, and possibly eliminated. I know, or believe based on your postings, that you are a pacifist and I would love for the world to be a place that every issue could be resolved peacefully, but we are not there yet, and I am not sure we ever will ever get there. Too many people with too many views that they feel are the "only" correct ones and have to convert the world, violently if necessary.

Sorry for the long, possibly controversial post. Mods, feel free to delete if this has crossed over the line.

First of all, you don't need to feel uncomfortable disagreeing with me, you are as entitled to your view as anyone. I don't claim to be right, except as far as I am concerned. My view, in this matter, is right for me, but not necessarily others.

I was waiting for someone to pick up on the "defending our freedoms" line, I left myself open there.
I don't wish to disrespect those who have died believing that, nor is the topic appropriate here.
I will just say that as a Christian, I take a pacifist view as far as corporate military action is concerned (ie, I would defend my own family, but question the motives of governments in warfare) 'nuff said, maybe too much.

My point was, as James has now said, if you want to play the game, you have to play by the rules.
Kilts are the very symbol of freedom and individuality, as has been outlined here countless times.

Neither of these qualities seem to have a place in the military, for reasons James has pointed out.

[Sir Robert]

Being in the military is about the controlled killing of people and breaking of things. Nothing more, nothing less.

An undisiplined military is an armed, out of control, rable.

A hyper-disiplined military is worse, it has the potential to commit war crimes. The SS death camp guards said: "I was just following orders." They were hung for their crimes. Lyndie England said the same thing, she got 3 years in prison for what she did to Iraqi prisoners.

Do not sing the praises of disipline to me I know better than that.

MODERN Germany has it about right, each Soldier has the obligation to deceide if the orders that they are given are moral or not.

If this is indeed voluntary I would say to the anti kilt guy, hey when my kilt is welcomed here then I will come back until then you can go talk to the trees when you need men. If it is less than voluntary I would start screaming at each level of your chain of command that this guy is out of the accepted bounds of behavior for an officer and needs to be removed from the service immediately for the good of the country.

Make him pay for his big mouth.

[James]

Graham has rightly raised the question of 'freedom and individuality': this might not be the forum to comment-but all too often there is a contradiction innate in such an expression.

For they are rights which must be defended, and sometimes it is necessary to fight to enable such freedoms to persist. Be that fight of arms, words, even demonstrated and maintained by wearing the kilt. The joke being that on occasion to defend those freedoms, it is necessary to accept some limitation of them.

So always there is a struggle by some means or other to defend freedom: it might be with The Continental Line of 1777, the liberation of Kuwait a few years ago-or the suffragettes of Britain struggling to obtain female emancipation, maybe the Royal Navy in the first half of the 19thC trying to prevent the slave trade to the Americas. Possibly Houston's army of 1836 at San Jacinto. Sadly all too often that freedom is bought and paid for in blood.

But always by whatever means, freedom must be paid for.

James

[Archangel]

Graham has rightly raised the question of 'freedom and individuality': this might not be the forum to comment-but all too often there is a contradiction innate in such an expression

snip

The joke being that on occasion to defend those freedoms, it is necessary to accept some limitation of them.

So always there is a struggle by some means or other to defend freedom: it might be with The Continental Line of 1777

snip

But always by whatever means, freedom must be paid for.

James

That's always the struggle individually or globally: your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins.
Not joke but irony. It is also very important to challenge and monitor these limitations. Many of the ones being applied now have little to do with resolving the issues and more with preparing a controlling authority. Any challenge becomes a challenge to patriotism which, as you know, is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
I don't know what the Continental line is but the other examples are part of the ebb and flow of the balance of power. I would question some and agree with others. In any case, the review is worth the exercise.

Back to the subject at hand. It is unfortunate that Ackwell has been slighted in this way but every movement forward has a hook pulling us back, but now we get into too much of a philosophical discussion that doesn't help him much.

[AckZel]

Well, we talk about my situation quite a bit. Thanks for your comments! There is always place for a little discussion about philosophy of war. Like Carl von Clausewitz said: "War is only a continuation of politics by other means."

In my point of view war for defend you own is only authorized war. And in Finland the main tasks of Defence Forces is written:

"The Finnish Defence Forces are required to practise territorial surveillance and to be able to defend Finland's territorial integrity and sovereignty at all times. Finland's defence must be strong enough to prevent anyone from threatening the country by military force or making it the target of military action. A credible defence policy will deter any aggressor from attacking or using Finnish territory against a third party."

I think that is right way for military to work. Not for agression against others. And I think the most important thing is just BE THERE. To make attack against us unprofitable. That saved Sweden from German attack in WW2. And you probably don't know about "Operation Stella Polaris" in Finland but historians are sure that it saved Finland from the destiny of Czech Rep. after WW2. Plenty of it can be found by google if interested.

Ok, here's my philosophy about it. (as good as I was able to write it in English) And I think I'll find a way to kilt the guild up!