4 ms·

>> I originally joined the British Army full-time after finishing my masters in computer science at Bristol in 2007. At the time, the campaign in Afghanistan wa

>> I originally joined the British Army full-time after finishing my masters in computer science at Bristol in 2007. At the time, the campaign in Afghanistan was in full-swing, and the campaign in Iraq was still running. All my peers were going into office jobs in London but I still wanted more fresh air at that point in my life. I just cannot understand this mindset. "I wanted to see the world so instead of taking a gap year I thought I'd go to the middle-east and do a bit of invading".

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
AllegedAlec 5y ago
You're exactly the kind of tech person he felt like needing to explain this to.
- basisword 5y ago
  I don't see what 'tech person' has to do with it. Personal opinions on the military are pretty basic ethical decisions.
  - AllegedAlec 5y ago
    Because you start out from the standard tech person position of arrogance. You didn't try to argue why you think his decision was ethically wrong. You went for a smug soundbite that sounds glib and clever.
    - basisword 5y ago
      1. He chose to join in 2007 - during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Those are both wars that, in my opinion and the opinion of many others (evident by the massive protests at the time) the British should not have been involved in. 2. In my opinion, anybody that joins the army when they aren't defending against an invasion (i.e. someone who travels thousands of miles to fight another country nowhere near their own) has a screw loose. There are times when fighting is necessary (e.g. WW2, Ukraine/Russia). There have been few of those times recently. 3. I have friends who have friends + relatives in the military. I've met those people at social events. I can't obviously say they represent all people in the military but the ones I've met have all been racist, homophobic and worse. Again, I believe you have to have a certain mentality to join the military when your country isn't actually at risk and this has been bore out by the people I've met. 4. The British military has committed countless crimes and atrocities over the last 50 years. I can't respect anyone who would decide to be part of that institution when it is not necessary to be.
      - notch656a 5y ago
- mardifoufs 5y ago
  In my case it's more me being a muslim that who saw first hand the effects of what is being "handwaved" in this very thread. I dont think that has anything to do with me being in tech.
lisper 5y ago
To say nothing of the fact that the air quality in war zones is not particularly good.
adewinter 5y ago
I think that's a pretty disengenous take on the author's thought process. If you read the entire article it's clear that he believes in the concept of defending his country and trusting his leaders to correctly decide how that defense is carried out. If that decision is to send him to the middle east then so be it. It very clearly is not about him wanting to "do a bit of invading." Maybe you think the middle east invasion was the wrong call. Totally fair. But you should blame the correct actor for that call, and it certainly is not the individual soldier.
- basisword 5y ago
  >> But you should blame the correct actor for that call, and it certainly is not the individual soldier. He joined while that war was ongoing (2007). I think it's perfectly fair to judge him in that case when the choice to take part was 100% his.
  - adewinter 5y ago
    Sure, if you're operating under the assumption that a) he understands geo-politics and global defense better than the leadership of his country and b) he has better and more real-time information (than the leadership) about the situation on the ground in Iraq/Afghanistan at the time. If he thought what they were doing over there in 2007 was morally/ethically indefensible and decided to join up anyway then, yes, judge away. Probably more straightforward to lay the blame squarely where it's due, at those who made the high level decisions to engage in the war in the first place, especially in the context of the outcomes of said war.
georgeecollins 5y ago
>> so instead of taking a gap year I thought I'd go to the middle-east and do a bit of invading". The fault of bad wars is partly in military leadership but much more with politicians and voters. To blame anyone who serves for the choice occupy Afghanistan is misplaced. And who do you want to have in the military of a democracy? Only people from a particular class or culture? I'm glad that someone from the Hacker News crowd is doing this.
- howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
  > bad wars All wars are bad, but if you meant unsuccessful then until the Taliban again starts harboring terrorist intent on attacking the United States its a bit early to label it a 'bad war'. Similarly, Iraq is no longer a threat in the region and is instead a sink hole into which Iran must expend blood and treasure to maintain influence. Perhaps in time one or both can be clearly viewed as unsuccessful, but its not yet clear that is the case.
  - mardifoufs 5y ago
    You can literally always justify a war lol. The "stability" argument is so insane considering the iraq war plunged the region into it's most unstable period of the past century but okay. You also dont consider the enormous collateral damage and loss of life that it caused. At that point you might as well believe what russia is doing is okay because in the very long run it's probably going to mean it will lead to less neo-nazis in ukraine? If we ignore the destruction and death caused by the russian invasion and focus on a very comparatively tiny upside to the war.
    - howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
      > The "stability" argument is so insane Geopolitics is a fluid system. Stability is always in play. > the iraq war plunged the region into it's most unstable period Really depends on whose instability we're talking about. Its been 'good' for some and 'bad' for others; all depends on what side of the thousand year conflict you find yourself on. > If we ignore the destruction and death caused by the russian invasion If you think Russia invaded Ukraine all on its own without being coaxed into doing so after years of US/UK intervention in Ukraine then you're poorly informed. Russia's arrogance, inhumanity and long-standing fears were used against it to great effect. If the risk of escalation can be managed Europe (and Ukraine) may eventually be free of Russia's stranglehold on energy. > If we ignore the destruction and death Strategic narcissism to think our generation can be free of war, have bloodless wars or find ourselves substantially more evolved than prior generations. Until we figure out how to prevent sociopaths from becoming leaders we are doomed to repeat history many times over.
freedomben 5y ago
Your privilege is showing. Most people can't afford to take a month off, let alone a year. Paying for world travel is out of the question.
- basisword 5y ago
  In the UK lots of people max out their overdraft and spend some time travelling after uni. They then pay this back when they get good grad jobs - e.g. like the OP. Regardless - if you cannot afford to do some travelling after uni, spending time in a war zone is hardly a sound alternative.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    >Regardless - if you cannot afford to do some travelling after uni, spending time in a war zone is hardly a sound alternative. Depends on the person. "There is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough, and liked it, never really care for anything else."
- uxp100 5y ago
  That makes no sense in context on the author's statement, which was essentially saying, I did this because I wanted to, NOT because I had no choice.
howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
> a bit of invading. The world doesn't work the way you wish it did. Atrocities are prevented and security is maintained through action and credible deterrence. This requires men and women willing or conscripted into service. Would be great if none of this were necessary, but it's simply not how the world works and there is ample historical evidence of what happens when a country lowers its guard. As I type this Germany is coming to grips with its own wishful thinking regarding Russia and its energy and food supplies.
- Tepix 5y ago
  There is ample historical evidence that having an army to send into war makes the world less safe, not more. If the US army in particular had a clear conscience, why would the US oppose the International Criminal Court in The Hague? Telling your soldies that their war crimes will go unpunished is a great way to invite them.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    I was against the war in Iraq and still am, but IMO the jury is still out whether the war in Iraq made the world less safe. Saddam was a brutal dictator including gassing and genociding the Kurds. The Kurds now have a fairly stable government in Northern Iraq thanks to the invasion and are a center of prosperity in the region. ISIS has been largely suppressed, and there's been no repeat of the Iran or Kuwait wars of Iraq since the US takoever.
    - Tepix 5y ago
      The aftermath of the Iraq invasion led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. It doesn't seem unlikely that Saddam would have killed fewer than that.
  - howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
    I don't know what you mean by 'safe' but I'd rather be unsafe than Tibet or Hong Kong who had no defense forces to resist Chinese annexation. The ICJ is a political entity for political convenience. Its not the neutral arbiter of truth you wish it were.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

AllegedAlec 5y ago

You're exactly the kind of tech person he felt like needing to explain this to.

basisword 5y ago
I don't see what 'tech person' has to do with it. Personal opinions on the military are pretty basic ethical decisions.
- AllegedAlec 5y ago
  Because you start out from the standard tech person position of arrogance. You didn't try to argue why you think his decision was ethically wrong. You went for a smug soundbite that sounds glib and clever.
  - basisword 5y ago
    1. He chose to join in 2007 - during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Those are both wars that, in my opinion and the opinion of many others (evident by the massive protests at the time) the British should not have been involved in. 2. In my opinion, anybody that joins the army when they aren't defending against an invasion (i.e. someone who travels thousands of miles to fight another country nowhere near their own) has a screw loose. There are times when fighting is necessary (e.g. WW2, Ukraine/Russia). There have been few of those times recently. 3. I have friends who have friends + relatives in the military. I've met those people at social events. I can't obviously say they represent all people in the military but the ones I've met have all been racist, homophobic and worse. Again, I believe you have to have a certain mentality to join the military when your country isn't actually at risk and this has been bore out by the people I've met. 4. The British military has committed countless crimes and atrocities over the last 50 years. I can't respect anyone who would decide to be part of that institution when it is not necessary to be.
    - notch656a 5y ago
mardifoufs 5y ago
In my case it's more me being a muslim that who saw first hand the effects of what is being "handwaved" in this very thread. I dont think that has anything to do with me being in tech.

lisper 5y ago

To say nothing of the fact that the air quality in war zones is not particularly good.

adewinter 5y ago

I think that's a pretty disengenous take on the author's thought process. If you read the entire article it's clear that he believes in the concept of defending his country and trusting his leaders to correctly decide how that defense is carried out. If that decision is to send him to the middle east then so be it. It very clearly is not about him wanting to "do a bit of invading." Maybe you think the middle east invasion was the wrong call. Totally fair. But you should blame the correct actor for that call, and it certainly is not the individual soldier.

basisword 5y ago
>> But you should blame the correct actor for that call, and it certainly is not the individual soldier. He joined while that war was ongoing (2007). I think it's perfectly fair to judge him in that case when the choice to take part was 100% his.
- adewinter 5y ago
  Sure, if you're operating under the assumption that a) he understands geo-politics and global defense better than the leadership of his country and b) he has better and more real-time information (than the leadership) about the situation on the ground in Iraq/Afghanistan at the time. If he thought what they were doing over there in 2007 was morally/ethically indefensible and decided to join up anyway then, yes, judge away. Probably more straightforward to lay the blame squarely where it's due, at those who made the high level decisions to engage in the war in the first place, especially in the context of the outcomes of said war.

georgeecollins 5y ago

>> so instead of taking a gap year I thought I'd go to the middle-east and do a bit of invading". The fault of bad wars is partly in military leadership but much more with politicians and voters. To blame anyone who serves for the choice occupy Afghanistan is misplaced. And who do you want to have in the military of a democracy? Only people from a particular class or culture? I'm glad that someone from the Hacker News crowd is doing this.

howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
> bad wars All wars are bad, but if you meant unsuccessful then until the Taliban again starts harboring terrorist intent on attacking the United States its a bit early to label it a 'bad war'. Similarly, Iraq is no longer a threat in the region and is instead a sink hole into which Iran must expend blood and treasure to maintain influence. Perhaps in time one or both can be clearly viewed as unsuccessful, but its not yet clear that is the case.
- mardifoufs 5y ago
  You can literally always justify a war lol. The "stability" argument is so insane considering the iraq war plunged the region into it's most unstable period of the past century but okay. You also dont consider the enormous collateral damage and loss of life that it caused. At that point you might as well believe what russia is doing is okay because in the very long run it's probably going to mean it will lead to less neo-nazis in ukraine? If we ignore the destruction and death caused by the russian invasion and focus on a very comparatively tiny upside to the war.
  - howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
    > The "stability" argument is so insane Geopolitics is a fluid system. Stability is always in play. > the iraq war plunged the region into it's most unstable period Really depends on whose instability we're talking about. Its been 'good' for some and 'bad' for others; all depends on what side of the thousand year conflict you find yourself on. > If we ignore the destruction and death caused by the russian invasion If you think Russia invaded Ukraine all on its own without being coaxed into doing so after years of US/UK intervention in Ukraine then you're poorly informed. Russia's arrogance, inhumanity and long-standing fears were used against it to great effect. If the risk of escalation can be managed Europe (and Ukraine) may eventually be free of Russia's stranglehold on energy. > If we ignore the destruction and death Strategic narcissism to think our generation can be free of war, have bloodless wars or find ourselves substantially more evolved than prior generations. Until we figure out how to prevent sociopaths from becoming leaders we are doomed to repeat history many times over.

freedomben 5y ago

Your privilege is showing. Most people can't afford to take a month off, let alone a year. Paying for world travel is out of the question.

basisword 5y ago
In the UK lots of people max out their overdraft and spend some time travelling after uni. They then pay this back when they get good grad jobs - e.g. like the OP. Regardless - if you cannot afford to do some travelling after uni, spending time in a war zone is hardly a sound alternative.
- notch656a 5y ago
  >Regardless - if you cannot afford to do some travelling after uni, spending time in a war zone is hardly a sound alternative. Depends on the person. "There is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough, and liked it, never really care for anything else."
uxp100 5y ago
That makes no sense in context on the author's statement, which was essentially saying, I did this because I wanted to, NOT because I had no choice.

howmayiannoyyou 5y ago

> a bit of invading. The world doesn't work the way you wish it did. Atrocities are prevented and security is maintained through action and credible deterrence. This requires men and women willing or conscripted into service. Would be great if none of this were necessary, but it's simply not how the world works and there is ample historical evidence of what happens when a country lowers its guard. As I type this Germany is coming to grips with its own wishful thinking regarding Russia and its energy and food supplies.

Tepix 5y ago
There is ample historical evidence that having an army to send into war makes the world less safe, not more. If the US army in particular had a clear conscience, why would the US oppose the International Criminal Court in The Hague? Telling your soldies that their war crimes will go unpunished is a great way to invite them.
- notch656a 5y ago
  I was against the war in Iraq and still am, but IMO the jury is still out whether the war in Iraq made the world less safe. Saddam was a brutal dictator including gassing and genociding the Kurds. The Kurds now have a fairly stable government in Northern Iraq thanks to the invasion and are a center of prosperity in the region. ISIS has been largely suppressed, and there's been no repeat of the Iran or Kuwait wars of Iraq since the US takoever.
  - Tepix 5y ago
    The aftermath of the Iraq invasion led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. It doesn't seem unlikely that Saddam would have killed fewer than that.
- howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
  I don't know what you mean by 'safe' but I'd rather be unsafe than Tibet or Hong Kong who had no defense forces to resist Chinese annexation. The ICJ is a political entity for political convenience. Its not the neutral arbiter of truth you wish it were.