[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Way, way off-topic

I wrote:
> On the contrary.  The "military", at least in the US and the UK, act in
> accordance with the laws of their respective nations, which require them to
> obey the civilian governments.  It is those governments, not the
> "military", that are signatories to treaties (not that I know of any that
> require nuclear disarmament).

Joseph Carter writes:
> Just keep telling yourself that..  =>

That it is governments, not the military, that are signatories to treaties?
That is simply a fact.

That the "military", at least in the US and the UK, obey the civilian
governments?  I believe that to be true, but it does not follow that I
approve of all that they do.  It is disingenuous to say "That fascist
military did [name your favorite nastiness]" when you know that they were
carrying out government policy.  In the case at hand if the UK is signatory
to a treaty which requires that it destroy its nuclear weapons then the
responsibility for failing to comply lies with Parliament, not the UK

In those nations where the military are not subservient to the civilian
government they are the government, and thus are carrying out government
policy whatever they do.
John Hasler                This posting is in the public domain.
john@dhh.gt.org		   Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill         Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin         Do not send email advertisements to this address.

Reply to: