|
Post by M-G Corki on Mar 10, 2008 21:48:44 GMT
I don't think many of you will know about the action of my student union, but their latest actions are disgraceful. I'm not usually one to get involved in student politics, but in our recent AGM, it appears a small party (by all accounts the 'Stop the War' faction) managed to pass a ruling to ban all military organisations from our grounds. It also appears that the whole AGM was a shambles as well. As a result, this means the OTC (Officer Training Corps) and various other military establishments aren't allowed on our site to recruit etc because of links to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This has caused massive uproar across the university (let alone outside it with the recent issue on the wearing on uniform in public by military personnel). I've signed a petition to get an EGM called, which I understand has been successful. It currently hurts me to be part of our Student Union, but hopefully our current action will overturn this ludricous action. It has even made the national newspapers. www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3508223.ecewww.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article3507307.ecewww.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/nmilitary208.xmlI am really looking forward to this decision being overturned. Also, if you want to throw your support, there is a Facebook group. Click here to join the group (if you have Facebook).
|
|
|
Post by daetirion on Mar 10, 2008 23:10:58 GMT
I saw this and immidietly went "Corki's at UCL" wonder what he thinks. Now i know ^_^
Really surprised they didnt let you call an EGM - Exeter's a fairly politicised campus i guess (we have EGM's fairly regularly) - probably something to do with the faith issues that are still cropping up. But we still had EGM's for no-platform motions for BNP etc which i would argue are a much smaller scale than this motion...
That and i have a lot of close friends in the OTC (and the odd relative in the Army) so i might be sympathetic to their cause. Anyways i appear to be rambling.
The main thing is "Blame the Politicians" not the armed forces. It's a truly blinkered fool who doesn't realise it wasn't some grand army plan of expansionism/agressiveness that took us to war, it was the politicians (whatever you may think of the decision). In fact, if you do get an EGM or whatever, i suggest you propose a countermeasure banning all political parties from campaigning on campus (specificly those that supported the war - which is, oh yeah, all 3 major ones).
umm might come back to this when more sober/less annoyed but please ignore any typos/logical inconsistencies/arguments that will wreck the time-space continuum. Will all be sorted in the morning ^_^
|
|
|
Post by M-G Corki on Mar 10, 2008 23:25:39 GMT
I said I believe we got the EGM. I think it is tomorrow, but I can't go to it. I've been through my school Combined Cadet Force Army Section, and would have joined the OTC if it didn't clash with rugby. I've learnt some valuable lessons and experiences from my time in the CCF. I think what has happened is stupid, and I really hope we overturn it.
This appears a common problem in London Universities. Both LSE (London School of Economics) and Goldsmiths have done passed similar motions recently. I also believe it has reached the University of London level as well. I'm not too sure on what King's College London's view is, but I did read Imperial aren't changing the current stance (i.e. supporting the Armed Services recruiting on their campus). I hope they stick to it.
|
|
|
Post by Odette on Mar 11, 2008 0:02:03 GMT
Wait. I don't see anything wrong with this ludicrous action? Why is it bad? Regardless of their being a war on or not. I don't think a university is a place for recruitment.
|
|
|
Post by M-G Corki on Mar 11, 2008 0:27:55 GMT
Why should the Armed Services not be allowed to recruit from UCL? Why don't they just turn around to the big companies and say you can't recruit either? I feel it is wrong stopping someone from recruiting from our university just because a handful of people don't agree with a certain issue that involves the armed services (who also really had no say in the issue either as it was down to politicians). I bet they are more than happy for some of the big banks etc to recruit. Sorry, but this is double standards, and shouldn't happen.
I have also read somewhere that there is an issue concerning the Israel-Palastine conflict in the AGM. By all accounts, it was anti-Israeli while mentioning the possibility of twinning with 2 Palastinian universities. Firstly, why are we even looking at worldwide political issues when we seriously need to look at our own uni first? Secondly, this promotes divisions within the university, and puts across views that aren't neccasarily the view of the majority of students. If anything, this 'proposal' should have condemned both sides, not just the one. What would have been better would have been promoting the fact UCL supports ways to bring peace to the region.
The fact that the whole student body is up in arms over this shows the extent of what has happened at UCL over the last few days.
|
|
|
Post by Odette on Mar 11, 2008 0:36:18 GMT
Why should the Armed Services not be allowed to recruit from UCL? Why don't they just turn around to the big companies and say you can't recruit either? I feel it is wrong stopping someone from recruiting from our university just because a handful of people don't agree with a certain issue that involves the armed services (who also really had no say in the issue either as it was down to politicians). I bet they are more than happy for some of the big banks etc to recruit. Sorry, but this is double standards, and shouldn't happen. -snip- I don't know if that's a good comparison. Let's be honest, does your university have any courses in marksmenship? How about strategic warfare? Hand grenade tossing 101? But I bet there is a course on financial mathematics. And probably economics etc. I'll concede that you probably need math in the army and stuff, and I'm sure that there are loads of applications from the engineering standpoint as well. But there's a difference from offering people a job application at a bank and recruiting for an army. If there's a war and you're in the army, you can't quit because you don't like your job. And at a bank, you never have to be afraid of never coming home to your family. Also, there are lot less morally ambiguous situations you can get yourself in working at a bank. (not necessarily zero. I worked at a bank. Not the most ethically pure institution I've ever worked for). Anyway. I'll also say I don't know the details of what's going on.
|
|
|
Post by manriva on Mar 11, 2008 1:17:30 GMT
Let me just say this ... Been there done that... I was a Vietnam War protester in high school, skipping school, attending moratoriums and all that, also picketed grocery stores who sold non United Farm Worker harvested table grapes.
ROTC (Recruit Officer Training Corps) was very large on US college campuses at that time and again today. There were many Universities in the sixties and early seventies that dropped Rotcee from their offerings. Mainly from the protests and threats of protests and to a lesser degree abuses by the Military Industrial Complex. Plus when it came out the CIA was using college campuses to recruit people that really put the brakes on...... For a time.
The military as well as other government agencies recruit on campuses for the same reasons. Quality people.... Who have a higher than average education and learning capability. The Military gets a good number their officer corps from colleges; Then they attend Sandhurst, Cranwell and Royal Naval College for additional work. In our case, not only West Point, Annapolis and Colorado Springs (Army Navy AirForce Academies). One does not HAVE to attend one of the academies unless one wishes a fast track career.
As I have grown older I don't have the problem recruiting on campus I did 40 years ago. In general, I don't want some high school dropout leading men into battle or flying planes or commanding ships. Therefore recruiting on campuses becomes a necessity and not an evil at all. Because one detests war does not make it go away. Pacifists and I count myself to some degree one; are only able to be Pacifists because there are military personnel to keep aggressors off their backs. Thats a fact of life that has never and will never change.
This current war is bogus to the Nth degree. Not that it would never have happened. It most assuredly would have eventually and the reasons for fomenting it by Bush and Blair were totally made up. They failed to show patience and wisdom. Nevertheless, we have it to do now and cannot rightfully withdraw in haste. That would be worse than what has happened so far by leaps and bounds.
University age people have a propensity for knowing what is best for everyone no matter their political bent and this is not surprising nor really unexpected. That there was political chicanery involved just shows how sophisticated in playing the game younger people have become over the last decades. Don't be embarrassed Corki, your school is not alone. Good luck with overthrowing the Gang of Four ;D ... Thats another minority who caused much trouble..
|
|
|
Post by taymist on Mar 11, 2008 1:27:46 GMT
Wow Corki that's absolutely disgraceful. I sure hope they manage to get it overturned. We always had an active OTC and ATC at Dundee and most other Scottish Unis. Though admittedly the military is highly thought of here and most Universities have close historical and current links with their local Regiments.
I know several of my own friends, especially Engineering and Medical students, had sponsorship through the Armed Forces for their degrees and would have struggled to complete their studies otherwise. It's no different to any other recruitment. It's a job just the same and people know what they're signing up for.
It's about time people stopped knocking our Armed Forces. They have to recruit, just like any other employer. Don't see what difference it makes if it's on TV, on the streets or in the Universities. They don't force people to sign up.
|
|
|
Post by Odette on Mar 11, 2008 2:09:46 GMT
It's a job just the same and people know what they're signing up for. It's not the same though. A job you have the freedom to quit without serious consequences to your life (like jail). It probably also has a significantly higher rate of mortality and "occupational" injuries. And as for people knowing what they're signing up for. I don't think anybody can really know what war is like before actually being in one (though I can't say, since I've never been in a war). If it weren't the case, then there wouldn't be so many cases of post traumatic stress disorder and the like.
|
|
|
Post by taymist on Mar 11, 2008 2:19:35 GMT
That's true, no-one can know what war is like but we can imagine, it's not like we don't see footage.... but what I meant was... they know they're signing up for x number of years. They know they can't get out of it just because they change their minds. Not all personnel get sent to war zones. Certainly amongst the graduates I knew, the vast majority had technical/support roles or desk jobs and never saw any action. It's not like we have a world war on our hands where everyone gets draughted .... but each of them knew on signing up that it was a possibility. I'm sorry but they're all 18 and all adults. It's their individual responsibility to think through the decisions they take. If they don't and end up regretting it.... tough.
As to injuries, you're probably at a higher risk of injury or death crossing the roads or driving your car these days. Many professions are dangerous, whether it's fishing, oil rig workers, construction, HGV driving ... I don't see that as a valid argument.
|
|
|
Post by manriva on Mar 11, 2008 3:05:01 GMT
PTSD syndrome, battle fatigue, shell shock (all the very same thing, just with todays name changing) isn't from having your bubble burst. It's from having the roof fall on your head (figuratively, though sometimes literally). No one knows what they are getting into when they join a military unit. As much training as they get, as much as trainers who have been there try to inform and throw things at them so they are not surprised it is always a shock.
It's why the indestructible attitude of the young has been used to advantage by military leaders down through the ages.
Still, there really is no reason for groups to attempt to ban military recruitment on campuses. It's really a tantrum for all intents and purposes, and no more than that. It accomplishes nothing in the long or short run. All it really does is show your dissatisfaction of your leaders which can be done in a much more effective fashion by other means. Why alienate those you wish to win over to your opinion. LOL... listen if you will to WHO just said that
|
|
Samurai P.I.
Mega Poster
Assassin (Redarm)
I used to call her Cindy, she changed ehr name to Sin
Posts: 6,656
|
Post by Samurai P.I. on Mar 11, 2008 5:02:38 GMT
I am not a pacifist, but I do believe in talk before action. In nearly ten years in Law Enforcement, and hundreds of arrests, I have yet to use anything more forceful than words and a pair of handcuffs. I am an instructor in the proper use of Impact batons, Handcuffs, and Oleoresin Capsicum Spray. The most important piece of information I instill on my students....is that a calm demeanor, and careful conversation can iradicate the need for any other Use of Force weapon.
Yes, pacifists are given a right to feel that war is wrong.....as long as they realize, no matter how much they wish to deny it.....there are no civilizations in history that survived without a standing army.
Has the Governments in control of the Superpowers of the world become a bit bullyish....yes. The core intentions are there....but, like everything else, power corrupts.
Alway try to remember that the politicians make the decisions. The military is forced to effect those decisions.
And as for the risks....while the risk is higher due to the naure of the job, it comes with the territory. You could be shot and killed in a bank robbery(Yep they still happen), or killed in the street by a pickpocket. Yu could die in a car crash caused by a drunk driver. Not being in the army doesn't protect you from death....it just changes the odds a little.
|
|
|
Post by daetirion on Mar 11, 2008 10:52:20 GMT
I said I believe we got the EGM. I think it is tomorrow, but I can't go to it. Sorry thats why i ended up posting the disclaimer - i really shouldnt allow myself on my comp that late but *shrug* was doing useful work at the time. Exeter also had the twinning with Palestinian Uni issue and to be quite honest i cant remember the outcome - i believe i may have abstained come the vote. And regarding recruitment on Campus, once you get to this age you should know what the hell your doing and i don't believe many enter it that lightly. It's those that ship out and join the Navy as soon as they can (17) that always worry me - if they're recruiting from Uni's it means by the time they leave they'll be at least 21 (if not older as it seems most OTC people take Gap Years etc.).
|
|
|
Post by Odette on Mar 11, 2008 12:53:57 GMT
Yes, pacifists are given a right to feel that war is wrong.....as long as they realize, no matter how much they wish to deny it.....there are no civilizations in history that survived without a standing army. -snip- To name a couple. Costa Rica, Samoa, Tuvalu, Liechtenstein, etc. In addition, there are many many countries that have a standing military that is used only for defensive purposes. There are far too many of those countries to list. Anyway, isn't the attitude that you NEED a military just because other people have one a little defeatist in the long run? It's like denying that there will ever be a possibility of (far) future Utopian society. Sure, you can be hit by a car if you work in a bank. But you can be hit by a car if you work in the military too. That's an invalid argument because it's a risk associated with life, not with the occupation you choose. Granted, there still are bank robberies However I'd like to see the statistics showing that the probability of death in a bank desk job is anywhere near the risk of death in the military. Anyway. Student unions were created for the same reason industrial unions were created (Ok, I have major issues with unions, but the ideals of the unions are sound). They're there to protect them members in their union and the collective interest of the company/school. In a university, the primary object (should) be the education of the students. A student union should act in the good interest of the students. They should help bring in opportunities for it's students to learn and prevent anything bad from happening to their students. Assuming they have the support of their members (which I'm not sure they do in Corki's case) then they have all the right to ban military recruiting on campus. In addition to that, I know that there have been incidents in American universities where students from the nations involved in the war (on the anit-American side) have been ostracized and in some cases abused because of pro-military stances on campus. If that's the case it could be argued that a military presence (even just recruiting) could invoke an uncomfortable if not hostile environment for your international students. This is also something the student union and the University should be trying to prevent from happening.
|
|
|
Post by Odette on Mar 11, 2008 13:08:51 GMT
And another thing. Regarding countries without militaries that do not survive.
Why does the fact that they don't survive invalidate the accomplishments of the country.
I for one will, in one hundred percent sincerity, say that I would rather die a horrible painful death than be directly/intentionally/volunterilly responsible for the death of someone else.
If I have a country of people just like me. Do the ideals of our country become invalid because we all died because there's some bully out there that wanted our land/women/gold/oil/etc?
|
|