Thread: Purgatory: Sympathy for troubled soldiers? Don't think so. Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000993
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
We're hearing a lot about soldiers who went off to Afghanistan lately in Canada. They come back with "operational stress injury" meaning they are traumatised psychologically. I find myself unsympathetic. Because soldiers train to kill people and to create the the sorts of atrocities that now apparently they find trouble them. Gee, you shot up a town and killed civilians and now your buddy's leg is blown off? Hmmm.
The story that got me to post this was a recycled news story about a father who shot a boy, 10 or 12 years old, and now is troubled because he has his own son about the same age. I pity the son. Not thinking much in the way of kindness for the father. You made your bed, have your nightmares in it.
If someone subjects themselves to something, which is the very nature of the job, and they knew going in, what really do we owe them? No doubt some of those who've tortured people will also claim that their actions trouble them, and that we should be sympathetic.
Do we think the WW2 concentration and extermination camp guards warrant our sympathy as well? Not happening, just not happening.
[ 10. January 2014, 21:16: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
I think to compare ordinary soldiers to concentration and extermination camp guards is appalling. The 'troubled' soldiers you talk about are ILL. PTSD is a serious mental illness and should be treated appropriately, and istm that these soldiers are not getting the proper treatment. Mental illness is not what soldiers sign up for, no.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Concentration camp guards were also soldiers. So are the torturers today. I'm sure they are all traumatised. That's what they signed up for. Did they think they'd enjoy killing and watching others kill their fellow soldiers? I blame soldiers for being soldiers. Just like I think we should hold everyone responsible for their conduct and life choices.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Blaming soldiers for their mental health problems is a seriously shitty thing to do, and it's clear that you don't understand being a soldier or why people become soldiers at all. Nobody joins because they want to kill people ffs. I'm a pacifist and I still get that. What disgusting things you are saying.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
I keep starting to post, then deleting.
no prophet I think I understand where you are coming from, but I think it's too black and white. People choose to be soldiers for a number of reasons and when they sign up I don't think they really understand how it will be for them.
I do think those who commit war crimes should be held responsible, tried and if found guilty, punished for what they did, but that shouldn't preclude them receiving treatment for PTSD. To do anything else smacks of revenge, rather than justice.
Huia
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Speaking as a veteran I am disturbed by your original post, no prophet. Most soldiers enlist because of patriotism for their country. Many also go into it to learn skills other than killing, if not in the military directly, then indirectly through college courses and technical training. There is also the economic incentive. Often times people enlist because they cannot find other work.
Most soldiers stay within the rules of engagement. They are trained to respect civilians and will avoid shooting up their villages. The Canadian Military has a long history of being peacekeepers in very dangerous theatres.
Operational Stress Injury, or Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, develops after experiencing a terrifying ordeal of harm or the threat of physical harm. It has been my experience that it can come after one such experience; but with most soldiers it comes after repeated ordeals. No matter how hard you train for it, when your sense of self is so overwhelmed your brain almost gets rewired.
When I was in the military it was estimated 30% of those in direct combat will experience PTSD. Now they find it is much more pervasive and can even impact support troops as well. You have to realize that many of these troops have had repeated tours of duty, if not in Afghanistan, there are other assignments.
To my knowledge, there has been no accusation of any Canadian atrocity against a village. I know that there is some question of handing over POWs to the United States which was prohibited in the Geneva Conventions, but I think over all your troops have served honorably given the situation.
Your troops are not baby killers. They have served their country well. Welcome them home. Support them as they adjust back to civilian life.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
As I recall, having heard a CBC report about this, the guy with PTSD and the 10 year old daughter (not son) had nothing at all to do with killing the 10 year old boy in Afganistan. He witnessed someone shooting a man on a motorcycle and was then one of those who discovered that the bullet had smashed through the face of the small boy holding on to his uncle who was the target. The solder was, I think, a medic, who had to try and treat the child, and failed. Mercifully, one could say, the child died.
If ever there was a reasonable cause for someone to suffer from PTSD (and there are lots), this one was. Comparing this medic with concentration camp guards or torturers deserves the kind of response that could only be delivered in Hell.
John
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
What the others said. I am also against the military action in Afghanistan, but I can distinguish between the war criminal/ concentration camp guard and the average soldier on the ground, some of whom may be doing their best to be disciplined and establish law and order.
Some may indeed have killed civilians. Some will have done so deliberately and are culpable, some will have been negligent, and others will have been put in an impossible situation by their superiors and by those ordering the war and now bitterly regret it.
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Speaking as a veteran I am disturbed by your original post, no prophet. Most soldiers enlist because of patriotism for their country. Many also go into it to learn skills other than killing, if not in the military directly, then indirectly through college courses and technical training. There is also the economic incentive. Often times people enlist because they cannot find other work.
Most soldiers stay within the rules of engagement. They are trained to respect civilians and will avoid shooting up their villages. The Canadian Military has a long history of being peacekeepers in very dangerous theatres.
Operational Stress Injury, or Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, develops after experiencing a terrifying ordeal of harm or the threat of physical harm. It has been my experience that it can come after one such experience; but with most soldiers it comes after repeated ordeals. No matter how hard you train for it, when your sense of self is so overwhelmed your brain almost gets rewired.
When I was in the military it was estimated 30% of those in direct combat will experience PTSD. Now they find it is much more pervasive and can even impact support troops as well. You have to realize that many of these troops have had repeated tours of duty, if not in Afghanistan, there are other assignments.
To my knowledge, there has been no accusation of any Canadian atrocity against a village. I know that there is some question of handing over POWs to the United States which was prohibited in the Geneva Conventions, but I think over all your troops have served honorably given the situation.
Your troops are not baby killers. They have served their country well. Welcome them home. Support them as they adjust back to civilian life.
Thank you for this measured and insightful post. Interestingly, I recently read a piece on our local news website, in which a former officer detailed his battle with PTSD. ( here ) NoProphet, I suggest you read it - all of it, even though it is fairly lengthy. This guy, at least, isn't asking anyone to feel sorry for him. He is talking about PTSD to raise awareness of the damage it can do, not only to the sufferer, but to pretty much anyone they come in contact with.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
I'm on my fourth attempt at posting a reply to this thread, and I still can't do it. Jaw dropping, not least because I served, I know people who've woken up in Selly Oak Hospital when the last thing they were aware of was being in some Afghan village, and I raise money, nowhere near as much as I could or should, for Combat Stress: The Ex-Services Mental Welfare Society. Talk about hitting a raw nerve. I just think you don't get it - I've never met anyone who joined up to kill people, and I reject practically every word of the OP's posts. To be honest, should this surface in Hell, I'm not even sure I want to follow it over there as it's far, far too close to home.
Posted by chive (# 208) on
:
I think the division of people with mental illness into the 'deserving' and the 'underserving' is pernicious and wrong. To me it has resonance with the nonsense spoken about 'innocent' victims of AIDS as opposed to those who clearly deserved it.
PTSD is fucking awful. I know that because it is part of my every day life. People with PTSD need help irrespective of how they got it. Otherwise their, and everyone around them, lives can be destroyed.
Yes, people should be held responsible if they commit war crimes but to hold soldiers up as deserving PTSD is utterly wrong. And I say that as a pacifist.
Posted by Highfive (# 12937) on
:
Here here to helping people with PTSD.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
If we accept the fact that we have soldiers, and have trained them specifically to kill - and most people have a huge reticence to shooting someone, let alone charging at them, bayonets fixed - then we have to understand that this is not only psychologically damaging but also that we have to have mechanisms in place to unwind that training.
Most former soldiers reintegrate into society just fine (I live with one). But they are disproportionately represented in our prisons and in our homeless shelters. We have a shitty attitude to mental health at the best of times, and frankly, no prophet, you're not helping anyone.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Jade Constable, I don't always find myself agreeing with you, but you're bang on here.
Also No Prophet's equating ordinary career soldiers with concentration and extermination camp guards is hopelessly off piste.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I blame soldiers for being soldiers.
My father volunteered for WWII, fought in North Africa, the Greek mainland and Crete,and then spent the rest of the war in a German POW camp.
He never regretted his experience, and was glad to have played a small part in the defeat of fascism, but often woke us in the middle of the night with his nightmares.
There was little awareness of, or treatment for, the psychological trauma suffered by ex-soldiers in those days.
I'd call you to Hell, but you're not worth it.
You are nothing but a complete arsehole.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I'm no great fan of the military, and certainly not a fan of war.
But, as was said upthread, people join for all sorts of reasons. Here, many young people join because it's a way out of bad circumstances. Recruiting ads on TV push honor, duty, purpose, etc., and tend to be scheduled around TV shows that may get viewers all fired up about those sorts of things--e.g., sci-fi action shows. Many potential recruits are extremely naive, and don't really expect anything bad to happen. Plus recruiters lie, so they can meet their quota of recruits.
When 9/11 happened, lots of Americans signed up right away for the military. They wanted to get Bin Laden & co. For the most part, that wasn't what they wound up doing. And they were massively lied to. They paid for those lies, and inadequate preparation, and lack of appropriate body armor and supplies, and for the arrogant hallucinations of stupid men on Capitol Hill, who thought grateful peasants would lay flowers at the soldiers' feet. They paid with their minds and bodies and lives.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
People break, even in everyday life. Track down the "Normal" episode of "Criminal Minds". It's about how someone without the usual background of deeply disturbed killer can become one, through absolutely no fault of their own.. You'll probably want a box of Kleenex.
Posted by fluff (# 12871) on
:
Whatever one thinks of war or peoples' reasons for becoming soldiers (and I myself am not quite a pacifist, therefore I accept the need for soldiers) - saying that some people with mental health problems should be treated and some people not, on the basis of a judgment we make about the illness's origin, is not morally acceptable.
Many conditions and illnesses may relate to decisions that the sufferers have taken in the past, but we still see those people as requiring help and compassion.
Or is the OP simply being provocative for the sake of it?
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chive:
I think the division of people with mental illness into the 'deserving' and the 'underserving' is pernicious and wrong.
Even if we could make that division it doesn't make a difference.
Take a peacetime example: A person who steps into the road without looking and is hit by traffic does not deserve ant less treatment than someone who receives the same injuries from a car that drives down the pavement*. (* Uk usage = sidewalk in US.)
It is the same for mental disorders and it does not matter whether the person with the disorder is in the military or not. PTSD is a srious condition and needs treating, and any person with it need sympathy from the community.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I'd call you to Hell, but you're not worth it.
You are nothing but a complete arsehole.
I recognise the provocation, but this is unacceptable in Purgatory. Call him to Hell or not, but drop the personal insults here.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
no prophet (certainly an apt name!)
As you are Canadian, can I point you in the direction of one of your own - Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire? I am currently reading his book Shake Hands with the Devil. I suggest you read it. There you will find a clear explanation of what led Dallaire to join the military forces in the first place (a sincere desire to be an active force to protect the vulnerable) and a shocking description of how he found himself leading the UN mission in Rwanda as the genocide started. He found himself powerless to halt the carnage; powerless to prevent men under his command being butchered; frustrated at being completely under-resourced; and utterly unable to make the politicians in the UN and the western nations take him seriously when he warned them about what was going to happen. Like many others he suffered deep PTSD and deserves our sympathy and admiration.
Before you make any more asinine statements, please read his book and reflect.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
and they knew going in
Within those few words lie a vast universe of assumptions that I simply don't agree with.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
no_prophet
I made a very simplistic, black and white, harsh, sanctimoniously pious comment on the Pacifist thread which got the appropriate response – which of course was my intent, although I certainly won’t retract it and will answer for it.
Superficially – and that’s all there is at first in perception – it overlaps with yours.
It is emotionally, spiritually unintelligent.
It isn’t inclusive. It isn’t compassionate.
But like so many of our threads there is a terribly beautiful, human, synergistic gestalt about it.
Each thread is an entity.
Nobody signs up to kill children. Apart from the truly psychiatrically, helplessly, fecklessly, innocently aberrant. I’ve known two men who have in combat. One was my best friend for nearly ten years. After. After sharing that. After sharing that he watched his sons become the boys he killed. He drinks. He gets scarier and scarier with every pint. I was the only friend he could do that with. All the others were dead. The other guy was a really, really nice guy. Lovely dad, granddad, husband, neighbour, churchman, friend. What he did in Operation Claret makes the whole campaign as documented a lie. As given away by its name.
I have done (small beer, domestic, behind closed doors) evil that I am completely forgiven as if it never happened, as if I’m as white as snow. But I did it. And the effects will be with me and my other victims until I and they die. The effects go on and on in others’ lives and in mine. Every day. Every morning I wake up. Many times a day. I have intrusive thinking, rumination, guilt, shame, mainly inner Tourette’s and in fact mild PTSD. I’m a mild example and my friends are extreme examples of the human condition. Of witlessly turning ourselves in to victims by being victimizers by being … victims.
This week I’ve been doing battle with my ‘You fucking bastard’. By embracing him. Again. Which was a milestone when I realized it last year. But it’s not enough. Forgiveness isn’t enough. God’s or ones victims. Then I realised that my concept of forgiveness isn’t enough. Because the standard, usual Christian one isn’t. It just isn’t big enough. Implicit in forgiveness is the restitution of all things. That’s ALL things. At the beginning and throughout Judgement Day.
So let’s do that NOW. Let’s be the Kingdom NOW. Be the prodigal's father NOW, for ALL sons. Including our inner ones. That means ... yours.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
OP: the fact that many of the people disagreeing with you are actually pacifists themselves probably should tell you something. For my part, I have a great deal of sympathy for the regular troops, doing the best they can in difficult situations. My objections are against the international cock-waving contests that seem to lead to war in the first place, but those waving cocks are not normally the ones who get killed, and never have been.
In terms of why people enlist in the first place: for many people it's a very good chance of a proper career in a life with very few options. The US forces in particular tend to get people from depressed areas where the basic options are 1: perpetual unemployment and poverty, 2: crime or 3: join the army. I'm pretty sure that they're thinking "A career! An income! Personal development! Protecting people! Building relationships! Travelling the world! Help with college fees!" rather than "Yay! Time for a big murdery murderous rampage of lovely lovely murder!" If there are people in the latter camp, then the psychological assessments really should exclude them (they probably don't always - but they should).
[ 15. November 2013, 10:27: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
He found himself powerless to halt the carnage; powerless to prevent men under his command being butchered; frustrated at being completely under-resourced; and utterly unable to make the politicians in the UN and the western nations take him seriously when he warned them about what was going to happen.
This is true, but I think he was able to save some and restrain some violence, and I think Rwanda would have been even worse off without him. Hard as it may be to believe that were possible.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
I have read Romeo Dalaire's book. Still: you sign up for the military and you learn to kill, they suppress your normal instincts about life and death. Then you return with troubles. I get the case-by-case "this person is suffering right now" and it pulling at your heart strings. But that's the job. I don't support soldiers and I don't support war. I blame the soldiers for their problems. I'd be much more interested in the survivors of the families of civilians in the countries where they shot the place up.
My perspective is heavily influenced by my family history. My father's family fled Germany in 1938 only to have to flee Singapore in Jan 1942. All of his like-aged cousins were killed serving in the German army and he was in training as the war ended. Their families were carpet bombed and killed. One relative survived. WW1 killed all of my French ancestors. My mother's family fought for the other side, they lived. So did my inlaws' family. Soldiers are troubled. Misplaced empathy. I blame the soldiers for their troubles. A shameful thing to do, to be a soldier, and get over it. You brought it on yourselves.
Lyrics to Universal Soldier
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
Sometimes only a Hell Call will do ...
[ETA: You're blaming the wrong people. No one in the armed forces decides where wars are fought. Want to get angry, get any with politicans who make those decisions. Particularly in wars that were fought by conscripts like WWI and WW2].
Tubbs
[ 15. November 2013, 12:24: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
For me, these things are empirical. I mean, that I may meet one soldier for whom I do have compassion; but another, maybe not. But this is true generally of people! So I can't generalize really, and I can't base compassion on general principles. It's concrete.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
What if I decided I had no sympathy for policemen injured in the course of duty? My moral standpoint and personal history makes me view police as the enemy of the working classes. They violently suppress legitimate protest and suppress workers rights.
They signed up to act as agents of capitalist society, and when they get injured they get what they deserved. I'm buggered if I'm going to help an injured copper.
Don't try and persuade me some of them are people too.
[ 15. November 2013, 12:14: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Whatever the rights and wrongs of being a military man or woman are, they are not sufficient to warrant contempt for injuries and illnesses they endure as a consequence of service.
Coming so soon after Remembrance/Veterans' Day makes the OP so despicable. I don't think Hell will allow me to express myself adequately.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
I have to say, as someone with a pacifist father along with many German relatives on my mother's side who didn't make it through WW2 because they died on the "wrong side" at Stalingrad,etc., that I find NP's OP offensive and downright wrong.
My grandfather taught in a village school through the jingoistic years and on into WW1, and had to deal with the loss of so many of his students. My father taught all the way through WW2, and ditto. I now find myself in the position of attending Remembrance Day to hold the memory of 2 students who have died because of Afghanistan service, one because of skin cancer from too much sun exposure, the other by PTSD-related suicide. Neither of them shot anyone - the suicide was in a construction battalion, ffs - nor did any (that I know of*) others of the 30 or so who went there. They are all proud of having attempted to make a positive difference.
To insult all of these men and women in one rude paragraph is extremely blindly ignorant.
The fact that the person NP is rude about was a medic just adds to my disdain.
*The exception being the sniper, but a) he was doing the job he chose, b) he was completely in control at all times c) he was extremely selective about the target
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
Anyone with mental health problems needs understanding and sympathy, soldiers included, but not more so than any other individual. We all face challenges in the careers we choose and some of us will be overcome by these challenges. Maybe there should be more stringent selection of people entering some professions.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
That's what they signed up for. Did they think they'd enjoy killing and watching others kill their fellow soldiers? I blame soldiers for being soldiers. Just like I think we should hold everyone responsible for their conduct and life choices.
But you can't have it both ways. Soldiers are trained to kill soldiers. The soldiers they shoot at also, on your thinking, signed up to be shot at, and therefore the set of soldiers doing the shooting shouldn't feel guilty about it.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
Re the OP...
Words fail me.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
As far as I'm concerned, "You chose to do X so don't come crying to me" is a shitty line to take with anyone in distress, no matter who they are or what they've done. But the idea of saying that to someone who's put themselves in harm's way for my sake is inconceivable.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
As far as I'm concerned, the calling to soldier is penultimate to turning it down.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
But the idea of saying that to someone who's put themselves in harm's way for my sake is inconceivable.
I'm not sure I hold with the "for my sake" part. Our corrupt leaders may have had many reasons for sending soldiers to kill and die in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I doubt the interests of their citizens even made the top 10. Oil, yes. Improved electoral prospects for themselves, yes. Halliburton profits, yes. The good of the people, no.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I don't know. People make all sorts of crappy choices, for all sorts of crappy reasons.
Would no_prophet be talking about someone who chose to be a prostitute, in the same cavalier manner?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
If soldiers are wicked for soldiering, how much infinitely worse are the ones back home who benefit from their activities while looking down on the soldiers in judgment?
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
Agreed with Doc Tor.
I struggle with anyone who says that soldiers should be treated any worse (or any better) than every other citizen of a country.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Anyone with mental health problems needs understanding and sympathy, soldiers included, but not more so than any other individual. We all face challenges in the careers we choose and some of us will be overcome by these challenges. Maybe there should be more stringent selection of people entering some professions.
PTSD is a normal response to abnormal stress. You cannot screen for it, because every single one of us is likely to develop this condition, were we to encounter appropriately appalling circumstances.
There is no person on earth who is immune to PTSD; it simply does not happen. The way to mitigate the effects is to offer appropriate support and counselling to those entering war zones or disaster zones as they work, to lessen the chances of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. By the time the PTSS developes into PTSD, it is much harder to undo the damage.
As for treating soldiers the same as others; that does not offer much hope in the UK at least. I have had PTSD since at least 1997, and am still waiting for the NHS to offer any treatment even remotely related to that. Actually, I am not waiting any more: I have given up hope.
I hope our soldiers are more fortunate, wherever they are.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If soldiers are wicked for soldiering, how much infinitely worse are the ones back home who benefit from their activities while looking down on the soldiers in judgment?
If there's anything that's guaranteed to make me feel a modicum of pity for no_prophet here, it's statements like this, which are, in their own inimitable way, as equally crass and pointless as the OP.
So well done, Zach. Good work.
[ 15. November 2013, 13:42: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Can we put it into context?
PTSD has indeed in the criteria for the diagnosis a response to abnormal stress. But what is abnormal stress (horrifying, life threat etc) for the non-soldier is part and parcel of the soldiering trade. I know, for instance the for prison guards that it is considered by Workers' Compensation schemes that being threatened, physically attacked, physically restraining, and using guns is considered an integral part of the job. Thus problems arising from these activities are not considered unusual and compensable. Is it not true that killing, nearly being killed, being beside someone who is killed is integral to the job of soldier?
Life choices, are they not the responsibility of those who make them? I can certainly hear the stories of individuals who have witnessed or being part of causing death and horror. But this does not equate to thinking they did not have the larger part in bringing it upon themselves.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If soldiers are wicked for soldiering, how much infinitely worse are the ones back home who benefit from their activities while looking down on the soldiers in judgment?
If there's anything that's guaranteed to make me feel a modicum of pity for no_prophet here, it's statements like this, which are, in their own inimitable way, as equally crass and pointless as the OP.
So well done, Zach. Good work.
Want to give engaging a try? What's so bad about recognizing the culpability of the whole nation for what happens to the soldiers?
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
Even the ones who don't want them there?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Even the ones who don't want them there?
I don't think Iraq should have been invaded, but I filled up my gas-tank anyway. Doesn't that make me culpable in the matter?
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
Well, where did the gas come from? Did you vote for a party that approves of military action (in Iraq)? There are more pertinent considerations, to my mind, than simply being a citizen of a country which sends soldiers to war.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If soldiers are wicked for soldiering, how much infinitely worse are the ones back home who benefit from their activities while looking down on the soldiers in judgment?
If there's anything that's guaranteed to make me feel a modicum of pity for no_prophet here, it's statements like this, which are, in their own inimitable way, as equally crass and pointless as the OP.
So well done, Zach. Good work.
Want to give engaging a try? What's so bad about recognizing the culpability of the whole nation for what happens to the soldiers?
What's to engage with? Your pointless and pathetic comment that those who don't go out and kill are far, far worse than those who do? That's not recognising 'the culpability of a whole nation': that's simply fatuous hyperbole that even you at your worst don't believe.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
But the idea of saying that to someone who's put themselves in harm's way for my sake is inconceivable.
I'm not sure I hold with the "for my sake" part. Our corrupt leaders may have had many reasons for sending soldiers to kill and die in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I doubt the interests of their citizens even made the top 10. Oil, yes. Improved electoral prospects for themselves, yes. Halliburton profits, yes. The good of the people, no.
I don't think any of the soldiers I've known have been motivated by wanting to get the government re-elected, or allegiance to big business. They're doing it as a public service. i.e. for me.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Well, where did the gas come from? Did you vote for a party that approves of military action (in Iraq)? There are more pertinent considerations, to my mind, than simply being a citizen of a country which sends soldiers to war.
One does not have to reach far in a Western Country to put one's hand on a product of injustice. Sure, some people are more culpable than others, but there is really no escape from participating in injustice.
So we have no ground to judge most soldiers—we're as invested as they are in the injustices carried out by military intervention. Which is why, in the spirit of communal repentance and healing, they do deserve support and sympathy.
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
PTSD has indeed in the criteria for the diagnosis a response to abnormal stress. But what is abnormal stress (horrifying, life threat etc) for the non-soldier is part and parcel of the soldiering trade. I know, for instance the for prison guards that it is considered by Workers' Compensation schemes that being threatened, physically attacked, physically restraining, and using guns is considered an integral part of the job. Thus problems arising from these activities are not considered unusual and compensable. Is it not true that killing, nearly being killed, being beside someone who is killed is integral to the job of soldier?
Exactly, it is an integral part of the job. According to your OP that means we owe them nothing, that no sympathy is due to them. So your response to a Prison Officer with PTSD is "fuck you, you should have taken a desk job". A firefighter must expect to come across burned corpses in the course of their job, so they can fuck off too. Ditto surgeons, after all it's their choice if they want to start cutting people up; they must know some won't come through the op.
[ 15. November 2013, 14:30: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
In this broken world people get...broken. Most of us one way or another, by choices we make and those others make. I pray and sympathize with the lot. Even with a soldier. Even with someone expressing judgemental beliefs like no prophet's.
[ 15. November 2013, 14:30: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
One does not have to reach far in a Western Country to put one's hand on a product of injustice. Sure, some people are more culpable than others, but there is really no escape from participating in injustice.
So we have no ground to judge most soldiers—we're as invested as they are in the injustices carried out by military intervention. Which is why, in the spirit of communal repentance and healing, they do deserve support and sympathy.
I guess to my mind there are several things going on here, which are not necessarily related.
I totally agree that in the civilised world almost without exception we own products of injustice and benefit from injustice generally. But I don't see how the issue of, say, DRC coltan in our smartphones or clothes produced in Bangladeshi sweatshops relates specifically to our own armed forces. The two seem separate to me.
Perhaps if you view the military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan as somehow for our own gain in the West - and that is certainly one view - then such military intervention might be a subset of this benefiting from global injustice. But then I wonder why our armed forces are singled out for support and sympathy, and those poor sods who just happen to live in countries with oil are not, even though they may be killed, maimed, widowed, orphaned etc.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
In this broken world people get...broken. Most of us one way or another, by choices we make and those others make. I pray and sympathize with the lot. Even with a soldier. Even with someone expressing judgemental beliefs like no prophet's.
My first response is to repent. If I didn't eat lettuce during the winter, I would have used less oil, which means there would have been that much less reason for the US to support Saudi Arabia's (and Nigeria's, and Russia's...) atrocities against its people.
Edit: crossposted
[ 15. November 2013, 14:34: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
One does not have to reach far in a Western Country to put one's hand on a product of injustice. Sure, some people are more culpable than others, but there is really no escape from participating in injustice.
So we have no ground to judge most soldiers—we're as invested as they are in the injustices carried out by military intervention. Which is why, in the spirit of communal repentance and healing, they do deserve support and sympathy.
I guess to my mind there are several things going on here, which are not necessarily related.
I totally agree that in the civilised world almost without exception we own products of injustice and benefit from injustice generally. But I don't see how the issue of, say, DRC coltan in our smartphones or clothes produced in Bangladeshi sweatshops relates specifically to our own armed forces. The two seem separate to me.
Perhaps if you view the military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan as somehow for our own gain in the West - and that is certainly one view - then such military intervention might be a subset of this benefiting from global injustice. But then I wonder why our armed forces are singled out for support and sympathy, and those poor sods who just happen to live in countries with oil are not, even though they may be killed, maimed, widowed, orphaned etc.
I'm not saying they deserve more support or sympathy that those killed or maimed.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
OK, I guess the question that also arises is why focus on our own armed forces rather than armed forces generally. I don't think you've made that distinction explicitly, but almost all of the foregoing discussion by others has been about how we treat our own military who are/aren't suffering from PTSD.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
OK, I guess the question that also arises is why focus on our own armed forces rather than armed forces generally. I don't think you've made that distinction explicitly, but almost all of the foregoing discussion by others has been about how we treat our own military who are/aren't suffering from PTSD.
I haven't said we need to focus on our own armed forces either. I don't think national boundaries have any meaning in the light of charity, though it might also be the case the charity is an imposition on other nations. The destruction of African textiles production by dumping tons and tons of cast off western clothing on the market springs to mind.
On the other hand, I don't rule out that one side in a war might be morally justified. Like any other issue, there are plenty of complicating circumstances.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Of course it's possible we're all misunderstanding no_prophet. Maybe he means that as PTSD is part of the job, proper after-care should be provided by the army. There should be no need for the British Legion or Help for Heroes because everything veterans need in consequence of their experiences should already have been provided by the Ministry of Defence.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
It does make me wonder if the same argument applies in all cases. If an industrial worker is injured by the machinery in his factory, does he get sympathy even through "he knew what he was getting in to?"
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It does make me wonder if the same argument applies in all cases. If an industrial worker is injured by the machinery in his factory, does he get sympathy even through "he knew what he was getting in to?"
False equivalence. If a factory worker is injured by the machinery then it's because either the machine or the worker did something they weren't supposed to do. The evils of war are a normal and expected part of the job of being a soldier.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It does make me wonder if the same argument applies in all cases. If an industrial worker is injured by the machinery in his factory, does he get sympathy even through "he knew what he was getting in to?"
False equivalence. If a factory worker is injured by the machinery then it's because either the machine or the worker did something they weren't supposed to do. The evils of war are a normal and expected part of the job of being a soldier.
Good point. But it seems to me that no matter how careful the workers are, and no matter how concerned the factory managers are, people still stand the possibility of getting hurt, and the workers know that, or at least ought to know that. The certainty of a soldier getting hurt in war is certainly much higher, but it seems more a difference of degree than kind.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
None of us knows what we're getting in to. Just like Jesus.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It does make me wonder if the same argument applies in all cases. If an industrial worker is injured by the machinery in his factory, does he get sympathy even through "he knew what he was getting in to?"
False equivalence. If a factory worker is injured by the machinery then it's because either the machine or the worker did something they weren't supposed to do. The evils of war are a normal and expected part of the job of being a soldier.
Good point. But it seems to me that no matter how careful the workers are, and no matter how concerned the factory managers are, people still stand the possibility of getting hurt, and the workers know that, or at least ought to know that. The certainty of a soldier getting hurt in war is certainly much higher, but it seems more a difference of degree than kind.
I think there are a lot of things that you can't possibly know ahead of time what they'll be like. When people talk about waiting until they're "ready" to have children, I secretly laugh, because no one can be prepared for being a parent, and there's no way to ever tell anyone what to expect. I imagine the same is true of being on the front lines of war-- that no amount of training could prepare you for what you're about to see, and there's no way to predict who will be able to emotionally and psychologically survive that trauma and who won't.
I also think that with a job that entails apprenticeship you have a natural expectation that the employer will provide adequate on the job training for whatever you're likely to encounter. If you take a job in a factory where they promise to train you in how to use unfamiliar equipment, you expect them to train you how to do so safely, and to have taken appropriate precautions to ensure your safety. The military is precisely this sort of apprenticeship, where you of necessity have to come in w/o prior knowledge, and reasonably expect your training to be sufficient to enable you to undertake your job safely. So the fact that this is so often not the case is the fault of the employer (military) rather than the employee.
Finally, it strikes me that many of us find ourselves in careers or life situations that weren't what we expected, but the difference is, for most other careers there's a much easier "out" when that happens. I trained for 3 years as an MFT, only to find myself absolutely miserable when I began my practice, feeling completely unsuited in many ways for the work. That sucked. But at least I was able to rather quickly and easily leave that line of work, and fortunately able to use my education in related work that was much more satisfying. Making that sort of transition if you find yourself unsuited for military life is going to be far more complicated and time-consuming-- time in which great harm can be done.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Just another pacifist clocking in to say I have every sympathy with the PTSD victims, and the amputees, and the other wounded, and the families of the dead.
Have you noticed that the recruitment ads generally do not echo Spike Milligan by ending - and kill people?
I have a friend who is of the opinion that international issues should be settled in the idealised Bronze Age way - with the leaders in single combat in front of the troops. Since that doesn't happen, we have a duty to the damaged, however damaged, which successive governments since that of Elizabeth I have signally failed to do. (Think Chas II did a bit.)
And that duty also applies to the support of those affected by the presence of a family member who has been damaged.
(I know someone, born after the war, who I believe is still having to deal with the problems his father brought home from Bomber Command. A bit Biblical, that, but no further generations will be involved.)
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Good point. But it seems to me that no matter how careful the workers are, and no matter how concerned the factory managers are, people still stand the possibility of getting hurt, and the workers know that, or at least ought to know that. The certainty of a soldier getting hurt in war is certainly much higher, but it seems more a difference of degree than kind.
There is certainly a difference in degree, but I maintain that there is also a difference in kind between "something may go wrong resulting in you being injured" and "even if nothing goes wrong you may be injured".
I was thinking a better comparison might be to a coal miner getting the black lung, but even then that's an unintended (albeit virtually inevitable) side effect of the job rather than an integral part of it. Other than the emergency services and some sportsmen (notably boxers) I can't think of too many jobs that have, as a known and integral part of the job requirement, something likely to cause severe physical or mental trauma.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Except that your other examples, like firefighter and surgeon, provide something positive. Where the job is to help. The soldier isn't a helper.
quote:
Gwynne Dyer, in "War" (1985), a book worth reading and a television series worth watching these nearly 20 years later....
The U.S. Army concluded during World War II that almost every soldier, if he escaped death or wounds, would break down after two hundred to two hundred and forty “combat days”.... The reason that only about one-sixth of the casualties were psychiatric was that most combat troops did not survive long enough to go to pieces.
The pattern was universal, in all units of every nationality on all fronts. After the first few days of combat, in which the members of a fresh unit would show signs of constant fear and apprehension, they would learn to distinguish the truly dangerous phenomena of combat from the merely frightening, and their confidence and performance steadily improved. After three weeks they were at their peak – and then the long deterioration began.
[ 15. November 2013, 16:19: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Good point. But it seems to me that no matter how careful the workers are, and no matter how concerned the factory managers are, people still stand the possibility of getting hurt, and the workers know that, or at least ought to know that. The certainty of a soldier getting hurt in war is certainly much higher, but it seems more a difference of degree than kind.
There is certainly a difference in degree, but I maintain that there is also a difference in kind between "something may go wrong resulting in you being injured" and "even if nothing goes wrong you may be injured".
I was thinking a better comparison might be to a coal miner getting the black lung, but even then that's an unintended (albeit virtually inevitable) side effect of the job rather than an integral part of it. Other than the emergency services and some sportsmen (notably boxers) I can't think of too many jobs that have, as a known and integral part of the job requirement, something likely to cause severe physical or mental trauma.
The fact that factory owners move their factories to the third world to avoid the expense of first world safety precautions might indicate how integral the suffering of workers is to the production of mass produced consumer goods. The workers have to be put in danger so that we can enjoy free t-shirts for our charity 5k's.
Which suddenly makes me sound like a communist.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Good point. But it seems to me that no matter how careful the workers are, and no matter how concerned the factory managers are, people still stand the possibility of getting hurt, and the workers know that, or at least ought to know that. The certainty of a soldier getting hurt in war is certainly much higher, but it seems more a difference of degree than kind.
There is certainly a difference in degree, but I maintain that there is also a difference in kind between "something may go wrong resulting in you being injured" and "even if nothing goes wrong you may be injured".
I was thinking a better comparison might be to a coal miner getting the black lung, but even then that's an unintended (albeit virtually inevitable) side effect of the job rather than an integral part of it. Other than the emergency services and some sportsmen (notably boxers) I can't think of too many jobs that have, as a known and integral part of the job requirement, something likely to cause severe physical or mental trauma.
The fact that factory owners move their factories to the third world to avoid the expense of first world safety precautions might indicate how integral the suffering of workers is to the production of mass produced consumer goods. The workers have to be put in danger so that we can enjoy free t-shirts for our charity 5k's.
Which suddenly makes me sound like a communist.
Which I think makes the comparison to the military all the more apt. Soldiers have to be put in psychological as well as physical danger so that we can enjoy cheap oil or whatever the latest cause du jour behind any particular war.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
One does not have to reach far in a Western Country to put one's hand on a product of injustice. ...
Is there some other country, in some other part of the world - apart from the one we've heard of long ago - where this is not equally the case - China? India? Indonesia? Congo formerly Zaire? Equatorial Guinea?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I can't think of too many jobs that have, as a known and integral part of the job requirement, something likely to cause severe physical or mental trauma.
Circus host?
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Except that your other examples, like firefighter and surgeon, provide something positive. Where the job is to help. The soldier isn't a helper.
Bullshit. A friend did multiple tours in Afghanistan as a medic in the 10th Mountain Division. Spent much of his time setting up clinics for the locals. Is that not helping?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Except that your other examples, like firefighter and surgeon, provide something positive. Where the job is to help. The soldier isn't a helper.
Bullshit. A friend did multiple tours in Afghanistan as a medic in the 10th Mountain Division. Spent much of his time setting up clinics for the locals. Is that not helping?
It's the military which has has the most positive input in the Philippines so far.
TBH I think that's what armies should be for - extreme emergencies.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
As I look at this thread, I am reminded of a scene in "Henry V" in which the king goes out in disguise to listen to what his soldiers are saying on the eve of battle. He is reminded that when bad things are done in war, it is far more his responsibility than that of the foot soldiers.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
I have great sympathy for all the young men and women who return from war wounded, either physically or mentally. It breaks my heart to see them with their legs missing or shaking from shell shock. I want them to receive all the care we can give them.
At the same time, the whole situation makes me very angry and frustrated. If I didn't know they were already saying it to themselves I would want to shake them and say, "What the hell were you thinking?! Yes, they made the decision to join up while they were very young. Yes they were probably offered free education and all sorts of perks by the recruiters, but they also can't be compared to young people deciding to quit college for a commune or to become prostitutes, because however young and poor they were, they had to know that they would be required to kill people. At some point they must have thought of that and decided it (the travel, the education, the glory) was a fair trade off for killing people.
After the fact, I'll give them all the support I can but before the fact, I'll never understand this decision in today's political climate and will do whatever I can to talk them out of it.
My first husband and I married in 1967 when we were 19. We were as young, dumb and sheltered as kids who grew up middle class in the fifties/sixties could be, but we and our friends still knew that joining the military meant killing other young people we had never met, based on political decisions made by old men we hadn't voted for.
Why are they still going? Why are their parents just as proud as punch over having a boy who is "serving?"
Donovan said it for me in his "Universal Soldier," almost half a century ago.
quote:
But without him,
How would Hitler have condemned them at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone,
He's the one who gives his body
As a weapon of the war,
And without him all this killing can't go on.
He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame,
His orders come from far away no more,
They come from here and there and you and me,
And brothers can't you see,
This is not the way we put the end to war.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Can we put it into context?
PTSD has indeed in the criteria for the diagnosis a response to abnormal stress. But what is abnormal stress (horrifying, life threat etc) for the non-soldier is part and parcel of the soldiering trade. I know, for instance the for prison guards that it is considered by Workers' Compensation schemes that being threatened, physically attacked, physically restraining, and using guns is considered an integral part of the job. Thus problems arising from these activities are not considered unusual and compensable. Is it not true that killing, nearly being killed, being beside someone who is killed is integral to the job of soldier?
Life choices, are they not the responsibility of those who make them? I can certainly hear the stories of individuals who have witnessed or being part of causing death and horror. But this does not equate to thinking they did not have the larger part in bringing it upon themselves.
Look, i made the lifr choice to live and serve among inner city immigrants in Nevermind. I did this knowing I was exposing myself to a TB carrying population with psych and behavior issues that almost inevitably lead to PTSD in their long term servants (via violence, stalking, things witnessed, etc.) When i caught the wholly predictable TB, would you have denied me INH on the grounds that I made the choice to expose myself to it? Or deny me PTSD care now on the grounds that it's wholly predictable for missionaries where I am and I knew what would happen going in?
There are some jobs someone's gotta do.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
I'm a bit shocked by the OP as well. Who deserves compassion? Everybody, all the time, including people who have done despicable things [which is a potential subset of soldiers]. That doesn't mean despicable things are okay; but it does mean that sympathy is warranted for everybody.
(Just because I may not be capable of it in the moment, when I am hurt or angry, does not make that less true. Sometimes I need to subcontract the ability to have compassion to someone who can do it when I cannot.)
The OP strikes me as immature and black-and-white, as someone noted. "Soldiers are bad people who do bad things" seems to me a very low level of moral reasoning. It isn't childlike clarity but childish blindness about the reality of military service. Soldiers are not bad people who do bad things. They are people WE ASK AND PAY to potentially do bad things FOR US. Can anyone spot the moral culpability here?
Injuries to the psyche happen in a variety of ways. The answer to them is never callous indifference. Callous indifference to human suffering only perpetuates it.
The only thing I wish military people to suffer is total boredom. I hope their combat training is never used, that the equipment is maintained and completely idle, and that the studies of war will eventually fall apart from disuse.
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think to compare ordinary soldiers to concentration and extermination camp guards is appalling. The 'troubled' soldiers you talk about are ILL. PTSD is a serious mental illness and should be treated appropriately, and istm that these soldiers are not getting the proper treatment. Mental illness is not what soldiers sign up for, no.
I agree with Jade - Apocalypse Now!
nonprophet - people join their national armies for many reasons - conscription, idealism, alternative to no jobs at home etc. Many know the physical risks of combat. I really doubt any are truly prepared for the psychological effects.
Furthermore, once they take the "King's Shilling" (or "President's Dime"), they are bound to obey the orders of their superiors. Right or wrong, no battle, no war was ever won by every soldier sitting round a campfire debating the moral issues of the forthcoming combat and taking a vote on whether they should partake (they may well have done but when the battle horn sounded, they fought). ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
My partner joined the Air Force out of high school, back during the Vietnam era, because she wanted to get away from her abusive father and gain a university education. She has service-connected PTSD as well as an ileostomy related to the trauma she experienced during her service, and she is 100 percent disabled because of it. You are very, very close to a Hell call from me, No Prophet, for insinuating that my partner somehow deserved any of this. People join the military for all sorts of reasons that may seem like the best option for them at the time. How dare you make judgments about them without knowing their stories.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Again: people may go into whatever profession. But anyone knows that being in the military means you train to kill and subject yourself to risk of being killed. Is anyone that naive to think it will be something else? Really? Soldiers are victims? Really? Surely people know that during the "war on terror" that they will be going to the middle east to shoot people and get blown up. So don't join up.
I will allow that on an individual level I get the responses. I also get that my take on this causes some or most of you to be offended. I said I blame soldiers for being soldiers and that I lack sympathy for the choice to be one, and that includes the consequences. Are you telling me that they have no responsibility for their choices? Are they merely victims? I have run out of empathy for anyone who does violence. It's misplaced. And I also have had my personal share of violence in my lifetime both to myself and to my own family. Not accepting it. Ever.
If soldiers want or need counselling or medication, they can get it. But am I supposed to feel for them? Support them? Hear about it all the time? No. Not happening. Not interested. Much more interested in people who haven't brought violence on themselves by their life choices. And I give time and money toward that. Not really very interested in warrior-victims.
I remember the Vietnam era, when the things I'm expressing were also expressed. They said "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem". Soldiers are part of the problem. Better would be no-one volunteers and that they know why they should not. That we do not support the troops. I wonder, could we have a repeat of the conscription/draft controversy from 40 some years ago? Like this: Draft card burning
I know I've struck a nerve. But I have seen this situation we're currently in myself before, and re-reference the family history I carry. And the experience of personal violence I also carry. When the stakes are war and killing, all else is fair as long as it doesn't return the violence. Because that's the real Hell. Whether it's an unpopular viewpoint or not.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
You know, my husband has been a soldier. My nephew wants to be a policeman. Both are dedicated to protecting innocents who would otherwise be harmed or killed by evil people.
I myself have never used extreme force on anyone, but that's more my good luck at having always been in a position where i do my protecting using less physical methods, like the law. I would hurt or kill in a heartbeat to protect an innocent civilian endangered by an evil person.
I regard both professions as honorable when practised as they normally are--honorably, within the laws of decency. More honorable in some ways than my own, as they knowingly take a greater risk, pay a greater personal price, and are exposed to more dangers of body and soul than I am. For the sake of those who need protecting.
I doubt anyone in tlhe liberated death camps would speak dishonorably of the soldiers who freed them. I wish there had been soldiers to free my relatives from the camps of Communist Vietnam.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I still reject this whole notion that soldiers 'know going in' what they're going to face.
It's simply not true that any amount of preparation for ANY task or situation is the same as actually being in the situation. No-one can predict the future to that precise extent. No-one can tell you that you're going to see some specific incident. No-one can say "now let's see how you'll react if you see a small boy with half his face blown off, screaming".
It's just bullshit. No matter how much we know and they know that there are risks more likely to arise in the military than to arise in the ordinary course of life for many other people, things like PTSD are not caused by the non-specific, slightly abstract information and briefing sessions and training that a soldier might undergo. Things like PTSD are caused by experiencing real-life events first hand. As much as anything, your brain is telling you this is real, this is not a drill.
And unless you want to suggest that we can try killing and maiming kids during training sessions in order to better prepare our soldiers for how they'll feel when kids are killed and maimed in front of them in the field, there is no way around the fact that no-one 'knows' exactly what's going to happen and how it will affect them.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I also get that my take on this causes some or most of you to be offended.
I know I've struck a nerve.
Whether it's an unpopular viewpoint or not.
Ignorance, pathological callousness, historical ignorance and a charlatanical claim to omniscience about every soldier’s motivation are only exacerbated by a self-congratulatory and self-pitying posturing as some sort of unappreciated prophet/martyr.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I also get that my take on this causes some or most of you to be offended.
I know I've struck a nerve.
Whether it's an unpopular viewpoint or not.
Ignorance, pathological callousness, historical ignorance and a charlatanical claim to omniscience about every soldier’s motivation are only exacerbated by a self-congratulatory and self-pitying posturing as some sort of unappreciated prophet/martyr.
I can't disagree with this analysis.
When you've offended everybody, left, right, pragmatist and pacifist, it's probably time to stop digging. While I understand what you're attempting to say, it's so unspeakably unnuanced as to be 'not even wrong'. I'm not even sure it's human...
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I also have had my personal share of violence in my lifetime both to myself and to my own family.
quote:
But I have seen this situation we're currently in myself before, and re-reference the family history I carry. And the experience of personal violence I also carry.
I see: Only your family's trauma and your personal suffering count. How cruel of you to keep repeating references to your own psychic injuries in order to discount similar pain in others. To Kaplan Corday's list I would add "hypocritical".
The only cheering thing I notice about this is how little your opinion is shared.
The only charitable thing I can offer you is a version of the other Leaf's proverb: "If three people tell you you're drunk, go lie down." A significantly higher ration of people are telling you you're wrong. That does not make you a righteous remnant or a voice in the wilderness. Think what it probably means.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
There is a Hell thread open for those who wish to castigate (or defend) no prophet's character rather than criticise his opinions and views. By all means be as critical as you like about posts, but avoid crossing the Commandment 3 line. You know the dividing line.
There has already been one warning. Next offender gets a reference to Admin for a Commandment 6 violation.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Going to police officers.
Again nearly all of them signed up to serve and protect. Sure there are a few who are on a power trip, but most are honest, hard working men and women who become the first line of defense in serving their community.
I have the deepest respect for them. They are doing their job, even if sometimes I disagree with what they have to do.
I found it interesting in some of the Occupy Movement rallies the police actually told city administrators the police would not intervene. Often times they went into the camps to help the protesters who were injured or became ill.
Cops do make mistakes. We all do. But I would rather have them patrolling my town over a bunch of vigilantes or fringe lunatics who want to take the law into their own hands.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
nonprophet - people join their national armies for many reasons - conscription, idealism, alternative to no jobs at home etc. Many know the physical risks of combat. I really doubt any are truly prepared for the psychological effects.
I think this hits the nail on the head.
The psychological effects of any trauma - whether it occurred in the military or not, are very hard to predict or quantify. Even experts struggle with this. So why young, idealistic men and women would be expected to I'm not sure.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
noprophet
Soldiers are not trained to kill people. Military training teaches people to march in time (drill), to keep kit clean and tidy, to obey orders, to shoot accurately, to operate a variety of weapons. It may also involve learning to operate heavy machinery (tanks, tank transporters, APCs, etc), to pitch tents. Survival skills are also taught, including how to live off the land, which may involve killing a fowl or small mammal for food.
What military training does NOT do is teach someone to fire a weapon with a real, live person in the cross-hairs.
It has long been acknowledged by the military that you can only tell if someone will be able to make it as a soldier in combat by putting that person in a REAL kill-or-be-killed situation: on the whole western armies do not train their soldiers with live targets.
Yes, a recruit to the military should be brought face-to-face with the possibility that during their career they will be faced with the fact of killing an adversary - but it is one thing to go through the theory, quite another to deal with it in real-time in real-life. And NO military in history has ever trained its troops to commit atrocities.
For you to compare returning troops from Afghanistan with people who operated the death camps is monstrous. True, most of the recruits who ran the camps were not trained to do that and they had joined the military but that is where all similarity ends.
Firstly, the German troops who ran the camps were members of the SS which had different training methods from the Wehrmacht: in particular, their training was designed to de-sensitise people from their normal feelings. If you look at the training manual for SS officers in the training camp at Dachau (originally an SS training school, the camp came later) you will see that each recruit was given a puppy which he had to train over a period of 6-9 months: at the end of training, the recruit was required to kill the puppy.
Local recruits involved in running the camps - mainly Latvians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, a few Estonians and Poles - were recruited according to different criteria, among the first of which was not only a willingness to join the forces of the country that had conquered their own but also rabid anti-semitism. Sadly there was no shortage of willing volunteers.
The other people involved in running the camps and who deserve our sympathy were the members of the Sonderkommando (called kapos): these were prisoners who were hauled out of the herd and forced to work policing their fellow inmates, working in the gas chambers and crematoria. These people had one choice only - do as they were told or be killed: how many of us, faced with that appalling decision, would honestly choose death rather than a chance of life.
If you really cannot find it in yourself to feel some sympathy for your country's returning military personnel that is a matter for your conscience, but IMO it shows a lack of charity and judgementalism that is unattractive in anyone purporting to have Christian belief.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Soldiers are not trained to kill people.
Which is just bollocks. They are. That's pretty much the whole point of the training - all that marching, and shining of shoes and ironing of uniform, and assault courses, and lectures, and live firing exercises, and living in a barracks with the rest of your squad, and going out and getting drunk with them - is not so we have a fit, well-turned out soldier who knows one end of an SA80 from the other.
It's so that when the time comes, they will put their rifle butt to their shoulder and squeeze off a burst of three without thinking about it.
That's what we train them to do. There is an awful lot less training at the other end to unwind that process.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. Particularly these days, with the way the law is, they are trained to follow Rules of Engagement, which may be weapons free or weapons tight. They are trained to discriminate.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. Particularly these days, with the way the law is, they are trained to follow Rules of Engagement, which may be weapons free or weapons tight. They are trained to discriminate.
There are lectures on that at Sandhurst. Catterick, not so much.
But seriously. The idea is not to lose it when the bullets start hitting the wall you're hiding behind, and be together enough to shoot in the general direction of the contact. If you want to call that nuanced, it's nuanced - but day 1 of weapons training is "this is designed to kill people".
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I have a young friend who has done two tours in Afghanistan (working with bomb disposal units). He's an NCO. Basically, my understanding is based on discussions over his training.
He's never shot anyone, but he has picked up the pieces (literally) of colleagues killed or maimed by IEDs. He reckons his two tours involved him trying to render safe close to 100 IEDs. He's coming to terms with the long term impact of his experiences.
My wife and I have known him for close on 20 years now, he's a good guy. Some of the dismissive generalisations of this thread are about as far removed from what he is like as you can get.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Of course you are right that shoot to kill forms a part of the training. But in the modern army, with its mixture of role on the ground, all soldiers need to be aware of the ROE and their implications for what is acceptable. As a recent court case showed, failure to get that will get you in a whole heap of trouble.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Of course you are right that shoot to kill forms a part of the training. But in the modern army, with its mixture of role on the ground, all soldiers need to be aware of the ROE and their implications for what is acceptable. As a recent court case showed, failure to get that will get you in a whole heap of trouble.
If you're referring to this case, I'm reasonably certain that anyone, even without the specialist training on the Geneva Convention and the Army Doctrine, would have realised that shooting an incapacitated enemy fighter in the chest (after deciding not to shoot him in the head because that'd be too obvious) was, in fact, murder.
That he did (and was an NCO like your friend) goes to sadly prove the point I'm making. And that the three soldiers involved managed to film themselves doing it, and not subsequently lose the video camera, also speaks volumes about the prevailing army culture.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Of course you are right that shoot to kill forms a part of the training. But in the modern army, with its mixture of role on the ground, all soldiers need to be aware of the ROE and their implications for what is acceptable. As a recent court case showed, failure to get that will get you in a whole heap of trouble.
If you're referring to this case, I'm reasonably certain that anyone, even without the specialist training on the Geneva Convention and the Army Doctrine, would have realised that shooting an incapacitated enemy fighter in the chest (after deciding not to shoot him in the head because that'd be too obvious) was, in fact, murder.
That he did (and was an NCO like your friend) goes to sadly prove the point I'm making. And that the three soldiers involved managed to film themselves doing it, and not subsequently lose the video camera, also speaks volumes about the prevailing army culture.
That case went to a military court reported more publicly than most.
My point is that this is an extreme case. If you want to disprove something, use this as an exception, but you are using it to condemn the armed forces as a whole, so you are plainly wrong.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
That case went to a military court reported more publicly than most.
My point is that this is an extreme case. If you want to disprove something, use this as an exception, but you are using it to condemn the armed forces as a whole, so you are plainly wrong.
I'm sorry. I'm not sure what you think I'm supposed to be doing here. Saying that the armed forces are trained to kill in combat is, to my mind, an entirely uncontroversial thing.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
That case went to a military court reported more publicly than most.
My point is that this is an extreme case. If you want to disprove something, use this as an exception, but you are using it to condemn the armed forces as a whole, so you are plainly wrong.
I'm sorry. I'm not sure what you think I'm supposed to be doing here. Saying that the armed forces are trained to kill in combat is, to my mind, an entirely uncontroversial thing.
In your earlier post, which I quoted and you omitted, you stated that:
"If you're referring to this case, I'm reasonably certain that anyone, even without the specialist training on the Geneva Convention and the Army Doctrine, would have realised that shooting an incapacitated enemy fighter in the chest (after deciding not to shoot him in the head because that'd be too obvious) was, in fact, murder.
That he did (and was an NCO like your friend) goes to sadly prove the point I'm making. And that the three soldiers involved managed to film themselves doing it, and not subsequently lose the video camera, also speaks volumes about the prevailing army culture. "
Why do you include that incident when discussing the fact that the armed forces are taught to kill people? Their training isn't simply a matter of pointing and shooting. They are also taught who to kill, how to kill and when to kill. Those marines made mistakes on at least the 'who' and the 'when' aspects which took it from killing people as an unpleasant but unavoidable part of soldiering, to murder.
I don't think murder is part of army culture, or even marine culture (which is a bit different), but looking after your mates very definitely is, and in this case there has been a lot of that.
My key point is that you are wrong to use this case as typical.
[ 16. November 2013, 15:06: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
To suggest that killing is not the job of the military and soldiers is just ridiculous.
quote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13687796
"A central part of what we do with our careers is we kill the enemies of our country," said Lt Col Pete Kilner, a serving officer in the US Army who has done tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"So it's very important that we understand why, and under what conditions it's the morally right thing to do to kill another human being."
The following is about Vietnam and American training. I recall this also discussed by Gwynne Dyer in 1985, whose book "War" I quoted above in this thread.
quote:
On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Dan Grossman
There was a major transformation in the percentage of soldiers firing their weapons due to the desensitization and conditioning training methods used by the military. The author defines desensitization activities as such things as whipping one another into a frenzy by shouting "Kill, kill, kill" together from conditioning behaviors such as wielding real weapons or engaging in realistic combat scenarios. Methods have enabled far more people to be able to function as needed and desired in combat circumstances.(Taken from http://www.bookrags.com/studyguide-on-killing/chapanal040.html )
Here's Colin Powell, a former USA general about Iraq War #1:
quote:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Colin_Powell
Our strategy in going after this army is very simple. First we are going to cut it off, and then we are going to kill it.
(Remark made as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announcing the U.S. gulf war plan against Saddam Hussein's army. Pentagon press briefing (23 January 1991)
Of course, we do glorify it, with movies being referenced above, but a major additional way we fool young people is get them playing war, via video games.
quote:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2009/11/killing-innocents-a-soldiers-take-on-modern-warfare-2-leak/
Last week, some footage leaked from the upcoming Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Though it has since been taken down—with Activision claiming "copyright infringement"—the short video left a lasting impression. It depicted Russian terrorists gunning down what appeared to be innocent civilians in an airport. What made this scenario so shocking was that it wasn't a cut-scene, instead the player was actually controlling the carnage, forced to shoot civilians to proceed. You, as the player, will be given the opportunity to put noncombatants in the crosshairs and pull the trigger.
I think the understanding has gone beyond what we were told 20 years ago about war: that young people could be convinced they'd enjoy being in the field of battle, and that they are invincible. Instead, we give them the right to ressurection within a video game, have them enjoy the adrenalin highs of gameplay, and then use that desensitization to get them killing in real life.
And the American military, and probably many others, even produce their own war games for training purposes. http://m.livescience.com/10022-military-video-games.html
Of course, you don't generally get PTSD from video games. so there's a lack of 'truth in advertising' that needs to be corrected.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Why do you include that incident when discussing the fact that the armed forces are taught to kill people? Their training isn't simply a matter of pointing and shooting. They are also taught who to kill, how to kill and when to kill. Those marines made mistakes on at least the 'who' and the 'when' aspects which took it from killing people as an unpleasant but unavoidable part of soldiering, to murder.
I don't think murder is part of army culture, or even marine culture (which is a bit different), but looking after your mates very definitely is, and in this case there has been a lot of that.
My key point is that you are wrong to use this case as typical.
Firstly, I didn't bring it up. Barnabus did. I was responding.
Secondly, nowhere did I say that murder is part of army culture.
(eta) Thirdly, nowhere did I say this case was typical.
Killing people is part of army culture, because we can talk about engineers and bomb disposal technicians and medics all we like, but what the army does, what it's trained to do, is go in, kill the enemy, and hold the ground. Again, I fail to see that as a controversial point.
[ 16. November 2013, 16:52: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
No Prophet, what would you say about the soldiers who liberated Dachau and the other concentration camps, or who discovered Pol Pot's horror gaols? The emotional impact would be hard to shake off. Should they be given assistance?
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Again: people may go into whatever profession. But anyone knows that being in the military means you train to kill and subject yourself to risk of being killed. Is anyone that naive to think it will be something else? Really? Soldiers are victims? Really?
As not everybody gets PTSD, no it is not naive to think that PTSD is not going to happen to them.
And, for some of the soldiers, yes, really, they are victims. Note, not the victims. Just victims.
That this victimhood does not fit into your square peg may have more to do with your inability to see the complexity of the issue.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
No Prophet, what would you say about the soldiers who liberated Dachau and the other concentration camps, or who discovered Pol Pot's horror gaols? The emotional impact would be hard to shake off. Should they be given assistance?
They are not the ones asking for sympathy are they?
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Soldiers are not helpers? Tell that to the Filipinos who are receiving aid from Canadian, Israeli, American, Australian, British, and French militaries (others are also probably involved, just have not had time to research it all)
Soldiers are not helpers? Tell that to the Japanese earthquake victims, or the Indonesian Tsunami survivors. The US Fifth Military was the key to restoring order in New Orleans after Katrina. Then there is Haiti.
No other organization is as prepared to provide immediate recovery efforts as the world's military.
My father was one of the first American soldiers to enter Hiroshima after Japan had signed the peace accords. He did not want to talk about the experience much, but I can tell you his battalion was decorated for their efforts in assisting the people of Hiroshima recover from the Bomb.
Don't tell me soldiers aren't helpers. You have no experience in the military. You do not know what you are talking about.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
No Prophet, what would you say about the soldiers who liberated Dachau and the other concentration camps, or who discovered Pol Pot's horror gaols? The emotional impact would be hard to shake off. Should they be given assistance?
They are not the ones asking for sympathy are they?
You have in fact already been told a personal story about a soldier who never killed anyone and who has a great deal of trouble processing their experiences, so yes, they are the ones asking for sympathy.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
They are not the ones asking for sympathy are they?
Not now, but those now going through similar experiences - see the correct account of the anecdote in you OP - most certainly are asking for help.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Or to bring it up to date from Gramps's last post, what about those assisting in the recovery efforts in the Philippines? I heard that Indonesia is already sending troops there, and the Aust Govt will be also.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
So say we have soldier X, who in the course of his army career has been involved in a) active fighting, in which he has killed, and seen his comrades die, b) served in a peace-keeping role during which he witnessed the results of an internecine massacre, and c) assisted the survivors - and retrieved the dead - after a natural disaster.
As a result, a number of memories haunt him constantly, to the extent he can barely function. Does he have no prophet's sympathy or not? Or does it depend on whether the current nightmare is the drowned child or the mass grave or the face of the enemy or the randomized body parts that were his best friend?
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I'm no great fan of the military, and certainly not a fan of war.
But, as was said upthread, people join for all sorts of reasons. Here, many young people join because it's a way out of bad circumstances. Recruiting ads on TV push honor, duty, purpose, etc., and tend to be scheduled around TV shows that may get viewers all fired up about those sorts of things--e.g., sci-fi action shows. Many potential recruits are extremely naive, and don't really expect anything bad to happen. Plus recruiters lie, so they can meet their quota of recruits.
When 9/11 happened, lots of Americans signed up right away for the military. They wanted to get Bin Laden & co. For the most part, that wasn't what they wound up doing. And they were massively lied to. They paid for those lies, and inadequate preparation, and lack of appropriate body armor and supplies, and for the arrogant hallucinations of stupid men on Capitol Hill, who thought grateful peasants would lay flowers at the soldiers' feet. They paid with their minds and bodies and lives.
People break, even in everyday life. Track down the "Normal" episode of "Criminal Minds". It's about how someone without the usual background of deeply disturbed killer can become one, through absolutely no fault of their own.. You'll probably want a box of Kleenex.
"Grateful peasants garlanding liberating squaddies"... hmmm - reminds me that often the biggest hawks aren't necessarily the grunts themselves as much as some of the news agencies following them. Thinking back to Vietnam, IIRC, the commander on the ground when the Da Nang landings happened, Gen KArch was asked (as he had looked nonplussed re the garlands etc) if he'd redo and smile to camera - he said he wouldn't have done.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Do (ex) soldiers ever *ask* for sympathy anyway .
In this country we hear about Afghan veterans being denied entrance to pubs etc. because of the likelihood of them drinking to excess and becoming violent . We hear about marriages being ruined because they come back as changed personalities .
This is inclined to produce pity on my part . But as a saying goes -- an ounce of love does more good than a pound of pity . So in this instance the way to show love is to ensure properly funded professional help for those who require it.
Indeed that logic should hold for anyone, anywhere in the world who seek a return to peaceable living, free of "Dreams from the pit" as Sassoon put it.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
If war is wrong, if killing is wrong, then those who are involved are wrong. It is not enough to simply say 'blame the leaders' and ' they are just doing a job', or 'they didn't know what they were getting into' or for the job skills. When the job involves killing and making war, it is wrong. Don't do it. As the sentiment was expressed upthread 'the universal soldier [s]/he really is blame, without him[her] the killing can't go on'. Yes the leaders are to blame, but so are the soldiers. It takes them dancing together, keeping time and they dance a war together. Stop dancing, don't go to the dance. If you come home from the dance and are hung over, don't come crying.
The withdrawal of public support for soldiers and killing is required, was required, was critical to halt the Vietnam war. You can trot out all sorts of examples of soldiers doing things like aiding disaster victims. Sure they do that, but it is not their primary role, and aid can be given and distributed by the non-military.
Some of you wish to demonise these views and me personally. I understand. I am not an insensitive person about what violence does. Empathy and support for individuals who have done wrong has been part of my career. Yes, I hold unpopular views about personal responsibility but I don't accept the victimhood ideas. If you make life choices that subject to things that cause you trouble, quietly deal with them, and don't assume that you merit anything special, and get on the side of promoting peace not war.
In my view, if you support the soldiers you support war and killing. Where and how do you think peace is started? The leaders don't do it. To repeat the phrase used in the 60s and 70s by draft dodgers I know: "fighting for peace is like fucking for chastity".
[ 17. November 2013, 14:32: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
no prophet
You quote the withdrawal of "popular" support as being a factor in bringing the Vietnam War to end: maybe.
What is certain is that a sense of civic embarrassment from about 1970 to the end of the war ensured that returning soldiers - most of whom were CONSCRIPTS, not volunteers - returned to a USA that had little or no time for their emotional and psychological wounds.
You say you are "not an insensitive person" - but the whole tone of your posts shows gross insensitivity towards not only the returning soldiers mentioned in your first post but to all military personnel. (For that matter you're pretty insensitive towards those of us who try to show there should be some balance rather than blaming and finger-pointing, but hey - we can cope with that.)
Your holier-than-thou attitude is such that, to my mind, it constitutes psychological and emotional violence and your judgementalism is breathtaking: presumably you think it only right and fair that YOU decide who has (to use your own words) "done wrong".
Hope you're happy in your ivory tower: being on any pedestal can be lonely, even if you've put yourself there.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
L'organist ... embrace him. Don't objectify him. Like this does you ...
ME TOO. Is the answer. From which we move on ALL together.
Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
If war is wrong, if killing is wrong, then those who are involved are wrong. It is not enough to simply say 'blame the leaders' and ' they are just doing a job', or 'they didn't know what they were getting into' or for the job skills. When the job involves killing and making war, it is wrong. Don't do it. As the sentiment was expressed upthread 'the universal soldier [s]/he really is blame, without him[her] the killing can't go on'. Yes the leaders are to blame, but so are the soldiers. It takes them dancing together, keeping time and they dance a war together. Stop dancing, don't go to the dance. If you come home from the dance and are hung over, don't come crying.
No_prophet,
The first sentence is so far, so rational. I have a high degree of sympathy My issue is that you too easily distance yourself from the situation. I was reflecting on this as I tried to find The Gospel in Remembrance last weekend. The conclusion I came to is this: You live in a representative democracy. What is done by the military at the command of your leaders, is done in your name regardless of which way you actually voted.
The fact is, you chipped in to give the dancers £100 to go drinking knowing there was a cheap bar. We cannot shirk our responsibility for the things that happen, the unintended consequences and the fragments that come marching home.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The withdrawal of public support for soldiers and killing is required, was required, was critical to halt the Vietnam war. You can trot out all sorts of examples of soldiers doing things like aiding disaster victims. Sure they do that, but it is not their primary role, and aid can be given and distributed by the non-military.
Some of you wish to demonise these views and me personally. I understand. I am not an insensitive person about what violence does. Empathy and support for individuals who have done wrong has been part of my career. Yes, I hold unpopular views about personal responsibility but I don't accept the victimhood ideas. If you make life choices that subject to things that cause you trouble, quietly deal with them, and don't assume that you merit anything special, and get on the side of promoting peace not war.
In my view, if you support the soldiers you support war and killing. Where and how do you think peace is started? The leaders don't do it. To repeat the phrase used in the 60s and 70s by draft dodgers I know: "fighting for peace is like fucking for chastity".
So here I can't agree with you. I would be OK with your rejection of military razamatz or political recognition. I could see that as part of changing policy and a reaction to the action of the masses. Denying support to the individuals is uncharitable. Denying charity does not make for peace.
What I think you actually need to say to the PTSD suffers is "We apologise. We sent you to war in error. It is we who wounded you". Get the world to embrace that and you may find peace.
3F
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
no prophet
Peace is not simply the absence of war - it has to fill the vacuum left with something constructive. Just like employees in a dying industry need alternative jobs to go to when made redundant otherwise the community collapses, until there is a real systematic peaceful alternative to war, soldiers will always be recruited. Until warriors for peace (not an oxymoron if you look at the Prince of Peace) are part of the system, those who would fill that role are going to be part of war. Being in the forces (let's not leave out the air force and navy) is not just a job but a vocation. You (general you) can recognise the vocation without approving of the end results (like recognising the vocation of ministers in faiths you don't belong to I suppose).
(I am on flu medication atm so I hope that all made sense...)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Some of you wish to demonise these views and me personally.
hosting
no prophet: please don't paint a target on yourself here. You may, if you so wish, do so in Hell (although this is not a recommendation: it's entirely up to you).
everyone else: please remember the rule here is to attack the issue, not the person. If you insist on making it personal, please do so in Hell. There's plenty to discuss here without doing so. Thank you.
/hosting
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
It was a big mistake to consider Vietnam veterans baby killers. As was pointed out, most were conscripts. They really had little choice in going over there. Again, most did their jobs honorably. What ended the war in Vietnam was the realization that we should not have been over there in the first place. While many young people had been saying that all along, the majority of the people did not accept that until after the Tet Offensive. When we realized it was an unwinable war, people wanted to get out.
BTW, I was an active member of the anti Vietnam War Movement.
War is unfortunately sometimes a necessary evil. Augustine discussed this when he developed the just war theory. Based on Romans 13.4 Augustine argued the power of the sword was given to governments by God to protect the peace and punish the wicked. While individuals should not immediately resort to violence, there are times when it is inevitable.
An example would be the lead up to WWII. The pacifist government of Great Britain did everything it could to appease the fascist government of Germany, but to no avail. Eventually it did have to go to war. The United States certainly did not want to get involved in yet another war in Europe and dragged its feet for a very long time. Only when it was attacked in Peril Harbor was it forced to go to war.
Bosnia would be another example. No one wanted to get involved in that conflict because of the history leading up to WWI, but an entire people were being systematically slaughtered. Eventually NATO had to intervene (another example of soldiers being helpers). Same with Kosovo.
The first Gulf War was also a justifiable War. We went to the aid of a smaller country which had been ruthlessly overrun by Hussein. There were many weeks leading up to that war in which peace efforts were advanced only to be spurned by Hussein.
Afghanistan could have been avoided if the Bush administration had heeded advance warnings by domestic and foreign intelligence agencies.
The last Iraqi war, I would admit, was unjustifiable. I spoke up against it from the beginning.
But I had learned I could not blame the soldier who was ordered to fight. The blame is squarely on the government leaders who lied to their citizens and pressed on in spite of world condemnation of any action. Frankly, I can only hope that George Bush will be arrested for war crimes.
I have learned that being a soldier is also a necessary evil. Few of them really want to go to war. Most pray for peace or want peace. If they have to go, they will go; but they would rather serve their countries in other ways, such as assisting in disasters. Christians can be military members. There is no shame in that.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 3rdFooter:
What I think you actually need to say to the PTSD suffers is "We apologise. We sent you to war in error. It is we who wounded you". Get the world to embrace that and you may find peace.
3F
I don't think we are anywhere near that, with all that I see, but I would accept your suggestion as a good start.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Peace is not simply the absence of war - it has to fill the vacuum left with something constructive.
You sound as if you think war is as essential as food or air. Would you say that a man couldn't simply stop beating his wife -- you had to find an alternative occupation for him? quote:
Until warriors for peace (not an oxymoron if you look at the Prince of Peace)
Jesus was not a warrior, I don't get the analogy at all.
Gramps: quote:
I have learned that being a soldier is also a necessary evil. Few of them really want to go to war. Most pray for peace or want peace. If they have to go, they will go; but they would rather serve their countries in other ways, such as assisting in disasters. Christians can be military members.
If that's really what they want to do then why not join the Peace Corps or FEMA?
[ 18. November 2013, 00:55: Message edited by: Twilight ]
Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
PTSD has indeed in the criteria for the diagnosis a response to abnormal stress. But what is abnormal stress (horrifying, life threat etc) for the non-soldier is part and parcel of the soldiering trade. I know, for instance the for prison guards that it is considered by Workers' Compensation schemes that being threatened, physically attacked, physically restraining, and using guns is considered an integral part of the job. Thus problems arising from these activities are not considered unusual and compensable. Is it not true that killing, nearly being killed, being beside someone who is killed is integral to the job of soldier?
NP, I have counseled numerous correction officers who were injured on duty, and they WERE eligible for workers compensation benefits, even though they were employed in hazardous work. Are you implying that people who do Society's dirty work shouldn't be helped if they're hurt? Or if people such as yourself don't approve of their line of work?
[fixed code and attribution]
[ 18. November 2013, 04:55: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Many conscientious objectors do find alternative forms of service such as the Peace Corps or the FEMA Corps, however openings in these programs are limited and are really very low paying. Besides, these programs do not offer the same educational/training opportunities as the military.
What I was saying was if a soldier is given the choice of going to war or assisting in a disaster, nine times out of ten they would prefer assisting in a disaster.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
If war is wrong, if killing is wrong, then those who are involved are wrong.
It might just be possible to found some kind of theological argument that war is wrong.
I am less sure that it is tenable to found some kind of argument that killing is wrong, in all times and places and circumstances. Because 'killing' includes self-defence and defence of others. That might not be immediately relevant to your train of thought in this thread, but the scope of 'killing' is far, far wider than in situations in war.
You might, I suppose, argue that Jesus exhorted turning the other cheek (quite literally), but it seems to me there's an extra step in going from making this desirable conduct to a positive declaration that not turning the other cheek is an actual wrong.
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
And there is a big difference between turning your own cheek and turning someone else's cheek for them.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The withdrawal of public support for soldiers and killing is required, was required, was critical to halt the Vietnam war. You can trot out all sorts of examples of soldiers doing things like aiding disaster victims. Sure they do that, but it is not their primary role, and aid can be given and distributed by the non-military.
You do realize that the reason Canada can spend money on social welfare and health services and development aid, is that the entire might of the US military would be at beck and call if Canada were ever attacked or invaded by another country - right? And that doesn't require the US or Canada to go out attacking people - I think we both agree on that - but the presence of the US military simply for national defense is enough to keep a large swathe of North America relatively safe and in Canada extremely well cared for as well. I would say that is a good thing.
It's one thing to be against an army's actions; it's another to be against the concept of the army in general, which you seem to be.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Peace is not simply the absence of war - it has to fill the vacuum left with something constructive.
You sound as if you think war is as essential as food or air. Would you say that a man couldn't simply stop beating his wife -- you had to find an alternative occupation for him? quote:
Until warriors for peace (not an oxymoron if you look at the Prince of Peace)
Jesus was not a warrior, I don't get the analogy at all.
Gramps: quote:
I have learned that being a soldier is also a necessary evil. Few of them really want to go to war. Most pray for peace or want peace. If they have to go, they will go; but they would rather serve their countries in other ways, such as assisting in disasters. Christians can be military members.
If that's really what they want to do then why not join the Peace Corps or FEMA?
Going to war is not the same as a man beating his wife and I think the comparison is distasteful. I DO think that conflict between nations is inevitable, and said conflict usually is from a moral stance rather than a thirst for violence.
Also, er, does Jesus talking about bringing a sword not ring any bells? Or being the Lion of Judah? Or ruling with an iron sceptre? There are many Scriptural references which could be seen as Jesus being a warrior, but a warrior for peace.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
You do realize that the reason Canada can spend money on social welfare and health services and development aid, is that the entire might of the US military would be at beck and call if Canada were ever attacked or invaded by another country - right? And that doesn't require the US or Canada to go out attacking people - I think we both agree on that - but the presence of the US military simply for national defense is enough to keep a large swathe of North America relatively safe and in Canada extremely well cared for as well. I would say that is a good thing.
The only country that's ever invaded Canada is the USA. Though I suppose it could be argued that Denmark sort of has. The USA no longer needs to invade, because it just buys what it wants. Though apparently China is giving the USA a run with its money.
I'm an accidental Canadian, war made me a first generation Canadian. I'm not so attached to any nation state frankly.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Going to war is not the same as a man beating his wife and I think the comparison is distasteful. I DO think that conflict between nations is inevitable, and said conflict usually is from a moral stance rather than a thirst for violence.
Also, er, does Jesus talking about bringing a sword not ring any bells? Or being the Lion of Judah? Or ruling with an iron sceptre? There are many Scriptural references which could be seen as Jesus being a warrior, but a warrior for peace.
I did not compare soldiers to wife beaters. I tried, with the wife beater question, to ask you if every violent action leaves a vacuum when stopped? You seem to be operating on some sort of glorified vision of the soldier and his "vocation" as almost spiritual and inevitable. I find that distasteful. There are many men who don't engage in warfare and yet don't ask for something else to do to fill that vacuum.
As for your picture of Jesus as a hawkish Dick Cheney of the past, just itching to lead an Army into war, I find that way beyond distasteful. His rare militaristic metaphors aside, his larger message was always of forgiveness and turning the other cheek.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Going to war is not the same as a man beating his wife and I think the comparison is distasteful. I DO think that conflict between nations is inevitable, and said conflict usually is from a moral stance rather than a thirst for violence.
Also, er, does Jesus talking about bringing a sword not ring any bells? Or being the Lion of Judah? Or ruling with an iron sceptre? There are many Scriptural references which could be seen as Jesus being a warrior, but a warrior for peace.
I did not compare soldiers to wife beaters. I tried, with the wife beater question, to ask you if every violent action leaves a vacuum when stopped? You seem to be operating on some sort of glorified vision of the soldier and his "vocation" as almost spiritual and inevitable. I find that distasteful. There are many men who don't engage in warfare and yet don't ask for something else to do to fill that vacuum.
As for your picture of Jesus as a hawkish Dick Cheney of the past, just itching to lead an Army into war, I find that way beyond distasteful. His rare militaristic metaphors aside, his larger message was always of forgiveness and turning the other cheek.
Yes, because I as a pacifist totally think of Jesus as a Dick Cheney of the past (thinking of Jesus as being from the past is pretty problematic for a Trinitarian Christian surely?) and have never heard of turning the other cheek
Fighting the good fight =/= militaristic. It's not that kind of fighting.
And war is not like every other kind of violent action. It is still wrong but is carried out for (usually) different reasons. And I have no idea where you get me glorifying soldiers and spiritualising them given my obvious pacifism, from the pacifism and remembrance threads. I don't think you've properly read my posts at all. I can understand that soldiers have a vocation (because they do and if you were to actually talk to soldiers you'd know this) even if I disapprove of the end results.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also, er, does Jesus talking about bringing a sword not ring any bells? Or being the Lion of Judah?
Yes, because I as a pacifist totally think of Jesus as a Dick Cheney of the past (thinking of Jesus as being from the past is pretty problematic for a Trinitarian Christian surely?) and have never heard of turning the other cheek
Fighting the good fight =/= militaristic. It's not that kind of fighting.
And war is not like every other kind of violent action. It is still wrong but is carried out for (usually) different reasons. And I have no idea where you get me glorifying soldiers and spiritualising them given my obvious pacifism, from the pacifism and remembrance threads. I don't think you've properly read my posts at all. I can understand that soldiers have a vocation (because they do and if you were to actually talk to soldiers you'd know this) even if I disapprove of the end results.
No Jade, I haven't read all your posts, just the ones I've been responding to on this thread.
That's enough sarcastic "er's" and eye rolls for one day.
As for talking to soldiers, I don't have to go far. My husband of 33 years is career military and so are many of our friends. I've talked to hundreds of troops on bases in several countries and I've worked in the Pentagon where I spent some time with Dick Cheney as well as Colin Powell as customers where I worked. General Powell impressed me very much and part of what I admire about him, as his quote on this thread indicates, is that he doesn't white wash or glorify what the military does. It's prime mission is to kill the enemy, not get an education or help out in disaster areas.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
General Powell impressed me very much and part of what I admire about him, as his quote on this thread indicates, is that he doesn't white wash or glorify what the military does. It's prime mission is to kill the enemy, not get an education or help out in disaster areas.
So is this how the recruiting posters and advertising are aimed? Do they say "Come and be paid for killing our country's ememies? Oh and by the way you will risk death, disablement and a lack of support if/when you return home.
Ours sure as hell don't.
Huia
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
No that's not how the posters are written, but new recruits do have to take an IQ test before they're enlisted. They aren't morons. Even the most naïve of them must have seen a few movies about war and combat.
They are old enough to understand advertising and know that they don't get the beautiful woman along with the car. No matter how much talk of free education and travel opportunities, they all know that they may well be asked to fire guns or drop bombs on people with whom they have no personal grudge. They are okay with that and think it's a "necessary evil" for a secure free world. Fine. I respect that position, although I don't agree with it. The attempt here to convince us that some of them join up thinking it's all going to be piling up sand bags before the flood, makes me think the naivety is all on this side.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Reminds me of that old anti-war T-shirt - 'Join the army - visit exotic locations, meet new people, broaden the mind, and kill people'.
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
Any swerviceperson who was in an active war zone and got stessed out deserves our thanks, werther it was WW I , II Koreas or anywhetre else for that matter. PTSD fries ones thinking, and add to the military police, fire, medical personnel any where anytinme.
My encounter with this is when I was in sales we had a person fall asleep in an armchair, drunk I later learnt he was ex Bomber Command aircrew, Having read a fair bit on that Commasnd he deserved our help & compassion, not derision.
Gen. Dellaire is another case amd he is public about the stress he went under when not allowed to help people in Rwanda.
So we need to show compassion for people suffering from PTSD, military or not.
Oh for people who want to not show compassion to the military , shame on you.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Twilight, seeing Saving Private Ryan, playing Call Of Duty cannot prepare you for combat.
Training, unfortunately, can to a degree. Charge, stick-it-in, twist it bayonet practice worked. To a larger and larger degree. Being taught to shoot at the centre of mass. Close Quarter Battle with simunitions.
It powerfully conditions you.
My best friend went beyond all of that, which he loved and excelled at, to training for 'the best, of the best, of the best'. Some here will know who that is. Well at least one.
Nothing he did after, which got him an MC and a brevet promotion to Lieutenant Colonel, starting as a private, felt as bad as the training.
And what he did after is as dark as it gets. The difference being control. In the training it's all taken away. All. I mean you have NO idea. And then you're unleashed.
And NOTHING in life can prepare you for any of it. From losing all innocence. For having been a creative, free, empowered killing machine. And the cost that exacts.
Even the Devil is to be pitied.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Sorry, private is not the rank. Although it was up until 1923.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Oh, I'm not arguing that any troop is prepared for combat, all I'm saying, regarding movies, news etc, is that they know they may well be asked to kill people. Some seemed to be saying that young people were joining up thinking that they would be learning computer science and helping folks in disaster areas. Of course knowing you're going to have to kill people and knowing what that feels like are two different things, but the moral decision is the same.
My heart breaks for young men and women of our culture, going into combat, being shot at and having to shoot others at close range when they've been gently reared in homes where they were taught to feel guilt and shame for pulling their sister's hair.
Last year I read a novel based on the My Lai massacre and then all the actual transcripts online from the trail. One young man, acting under orders from his superior, had to herd villagers into a trench and shoot them. The other soldiers all remember how he sobbed while he did it.
I have tons of sympathy for the returning soldiers with PTSD. I also think they shouldn't have gone in the first place. I know that's a bit too grey area for this black and white group.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I have tons of sympathy for the returning soldiers with PTSD. I also think they shouldn't have gone in the first place. I know that's a bit too grey area for this black and white group.
Not at all - I think a lot of posters are saying something similar.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
I'm very black and white on that: no more war.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
That reminds me of this quote: quote:
There will be no war, but in the pursuit of principle no stone will be left standing.
- John Le Carré
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
No that's not how the posters are written, but new recruits do have to take an IQ test before they're enlisted. They aren't morons. Even the most naïve of them must have seen a few movies about war and combat.
They are old enough to understand advertising and know that they don't get the beautiful woman along with the car. No matter how much talk of free education and travel opportunities, they all know that they may well be asked to fire guns or drop bombs on people with whom they have no personal grudge. They are okay with that and think it's a "necessary evil" for a secure free world. Fine. I respect that position, although I don't agree with it. The attempt here to convince us that some of them join up thinking it's all going to be piling up sand bags before the flood, makes me think the naivety is all on this side.
Things may be different in the USA but almost 40% of British Army recruits have a reading age of 11.
There is a reasoning test but my daughter took it and didn't think it was difficult, only that there wasn't much time. If young men and women, many of whom are not legally adults, have a reading age of eleven their reasoning might not be as sophisticated as you seem to suggest.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Things may be different in the USA but almost 40% of British Army recruits have a reading age of 11.
It reminds me of a story my dad tells of his conscription (back in the early 50s). All the conscripts in his cadre take a maths test, something like a hundred questions of increasing difficulty, no time limit, leave when you can't do any more.
He and another man (I say man, my dad was just past his 18th birthday) are the last two remaining, and they hand their tests into the sergeant. Who makes a note of their names and bins the papers.
My dad spent his service in the artillery sound-ranging unit, blowing holes in West Germany and driving around in a bren gun carrier. The others became infantry. Difficult to say who'd have died first if the Russians came over the border, but it was quite clear that my dad wasn't cannon-fodder in the same way as the infantrymen.
(Fast forward forty years, and Mrs Tor is seconded to an infantry regiment. Very little appears to have changed. Even the officers.)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Napoleon was a genius at maths, and thus found his way into the artillery, as he was a whiz at calculating trajectories and so on, and the rest is history.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Front-line infantry have been a minority of the British Army since at least WW1.
And yes, to get into the Royal Engineers or the Royal Artillery you needed to be more than averagely numerate.
In WW2 a conscript had to in effect fail about half a dozen tests (not all on paper, not all intellectual) before being posted to a line infantry battalion. They had to have not volunteered for any other service or be part of a Territorial or Volunteer or Cadet unit. They had to not be a seaman (or else they would have been sent to the Royal Navy). They had to have no personal or close family connection with any higher status unit (If your Dad was in the Guards or a highland regime t or the Cavalry and you wanted in, strings might be pulled). They had to not be found suitable for the RAF, which had first pick of conscripts.
Once in the Army as a private and sent to basic training they had to be unwanted by the Engineers, the Artillery, and the Signals (who all put together outnumbered the infantry in many war zones), then not qualify for tanks (RTR - the cavalry probably mostly recruited volunteers due to being posh, ditto the Guards) They had to have either not applied for or failed selection for officer training. No-one must have recommended them as an NCO. Ditto commandos, paras, and half a dozen other special forces units which might occasionally take new recruits. Then of course they must have missed out of being drafted into RAOC, RASC, REME, RAMC. And other units now forgotten. It was really hard to end up as a squaddie...
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
My father (U.S. 1941 ) was immediately pulled from his enlistment group, and promoted on the spot, after they saw his scores. "Highest ever at this testing area," the story goes.
How sad, we were all fighting Hitler while unintentionally practicing his eugenics.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
I see a lot of grey when it comes to war. I would rather diplomacy to work, but sometimes diplomacy will only work when there is military might to back it up. An example would be the Syrian gassing of its people. The only reason why Assad agreed to let the UN take over the chemical munitions was because he realized he would not be able to withstand military intervention by the US. Not sure the US would have gone it alone, but we were awfully close. I would say the US agreed to the deal too because it did not want to run the risk of having to take on Russia too.
I would say organizations like the UN have promoted the peace in many areas of the world, but it the UN has from time to time had to rely on the military might of its member nations to enforce the peace.
Just recently I have been reviewing the military blockade of Cuba during the Missile Crisis. I was 13 at the time it happened. We came very, very close to all out war there. Fortunately, the UN became a release valve for all the posturing while Nikita Khrushchev and John F Kennedy were sending letters back and forth through back channels to reach an agreement. We pulled some medium range missiles out of Turkey which gave Khrushchev a face saving way of pulling the Soviet missiles out of Cuba.
War is evil, that is true. However, there are times when it is inevitable. But I cannot condemn those who have to go to war. We need to support their return to civilian life with as little disruption as possible.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Things may be different in the USA but almost 40% of British Army recruits have a reading age of 11.
It reminds me of a story my dad tells of his conscription (back in the early 50s). All the conscripts in his cadre take a maths test, something like a hundred questions of increasing difficulty, no time limit, leave when you can't do any more.
He and another man (I say man, my dad was just past his 18th birthday) are the last two remaining, and they hand their tests into the sergeant. Who makes a note of their names and bins the papers.
My dad spent his service in the artillery sound-ranging unit, blowing holes in West Germany and driving around in a bren gun carrier. The others became infantry. Difficult to say who'd have died first if the Russians came over the border, but it was quite clear that my dad wasn't cannon-fodder in the same way as the infantrymen.
(Fast forward forty years, and Mrs Tor is seconded to an infantry regiment. Very little appears to have changed. Even the officers.)
There is an international High School student test which is taken in a large number of countries with follow up on student success. Over the years, such a multi cultural testing population meant that a large number of optional additional questions were added to the academic ones for research purposes. Finally someone realized that academic success was correlated strongly with identifying which students simply completed the test and answered all questions, ignoring what they wrote.
This may have been what the army was testing for.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
I see No Prophet is still labouring under the impression that his/her (can’t remember which now) view are somehow not provided and protected by the military forces that have fought to protect her freedoms, now and in the past.
When my children behaved in that way I pointed out that they were spiteful and ungrateful.
NP, I have mentioned this before and you didn’t seem to grasp it then, so here we go, once more from the top…
Your views, sitting in a nice safe place, in the early 21st century, have been provided for by men and women who have died to ensure you have that safe place, that you are still alive and comfortable in the early 21st century. You owe them a debt which you cannot comprehend. I really do hope that sticks in your craw. Blood has been spilt on your behalf by the armed forces of the west, whether you like it or not.
To then call those people rather offensive names and object to what they have done for you is not the mark of a Christian. I’m sure there are parallels to be drawn by the actions of soldiers who gave their lives and their sanity to protect you and Christ’s passion on the cross but I’ll leave that to others.
I just don’t see how you can call one act Divine and that leads you to worship Christ, and yet have a polar opposite view of those who gave everything to protect your right to sit in comfort and safety. Ponder on that for a while.
Of course if you object to soldiers who protect you, then one is also entitled to wonder if you are actually sympathetic to the view and morals of those who the soldiers are fighting. If you are sympathetic to the enemies of “western” armies then what does that make you?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
NP, I have mentioned this before and you didn’t seem to grasp it then, so here we go, once more from the top…
Deano, the problem with such tin-eared bollocks from the shallow end of the patriotism pool is that it makes me more, not less, sympathetic to his OP. If you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd realise that he had relatives who fought for the Wehrmacht.
There's absolutely no reason for anyone at this point in history to wittle on about the great freedoms won for western civilisation when all we've been doing for the past thousand years is decide which bit of western civilisation was ascendent in the west. NP is at perfect liberty (and would be no matter the outcome of all the wars previously fought) to express his opinion however he sees fit. That he seems to have had an empathy bypass when it comes to battlefield-induced PTSD is pretty much a separate argument.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
It was a big mistake to consider Vietnam veterans baby killers. As was pointed out, most were conscripts. They really had little choice in going over there.
If someone killed babies in Vietnam it doesn't matter whether they were there by choice or not. They are a baby killer either way and deserve social vilification and legal punishment.
Some conscripts conducted themselves with honour, others allowed the transgressive context of war to affect their morality and give them licence to do things that a normal context would make them abhor. Drugs, bullying, violence, war crimes and massacres of innocents all took place, and only isolated events like Mai Lai were ever properly recognised, while it was likely only the tip of a horrific iceberg.
I agree with no prophet to a point. If someone commits a criminal act they should be treated as a criminal, with all the consequences that entails. If someone commits an illegal, or unnecessary, or disproportante act of violence or killing then they should be vilified by society and prosecuted by law. Mostly this never happens. We as a society protect our soldiers from the consequences of their actions, partly out of guilt at our own responsibility for licencing their actions.
But I disagree with no prophet in that if a criminal is psychologicaly or physically damaged, either as a result of the context they were put in by an uncaring or unjust society, or the situation they chose, that should affect our response to them. Not to excuse or ignore their actions, but to treat them as i.e a psychologically damaged criminal rather than as someone fully responsible for their actions. They should be treated and cared for by society even if they are criminals, just like the patients at Broadmoor are treated, despite their crimes. Because we are a society that, unlike no prophet, does not believe in standing by and neglecting the health and wellbeing of any human being, even if they have broken the law.
In terms of personal sympathy, that is a question for every individual how far your sympathy extends to those you don't agree with or even like. Do you have sympathy for a murderer whose violent rages came about because of vicious abuse when he was a child for instance? Or a drink driver who was struggling with an addiction he couldn't control. Neither should be excused the consequences of their actions, but both should elicit some measure of sympathy and understanding, without taking away our abhorrence at their actions.
What we think about soldiers relies on where we draw the line between a criminal act of violence and a legitimate use of violence. As a society we have agreed that war is, given certain conditions, legitimate. To paint those who carry out such legitimate violence as criminals is hardly fair. Yet of course the fact that certain violent acts are legitimate in war should not prevent soldiers being held accountable for any illegitimate acts - massacres, ill treatment of civilians or prisoners etc.
If you are an arch-pacifist and consider there to be no legitimate use of violence ever then you may consider all soldiers to be criminals, and all those who support them through logistics and transport to be criminal accomplices as well. But even if you do hold such a radical view, that should still not preclude natural human sympathy for those who are hurt, even if that sympathy is held at the same time as an abhorrence for their actions. And you should be tempered by an awareness that your views are not held by the soldiers themselves, or society at large.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd realise that he had relatives who fought for the Wehrmacht.
Yes I do know. Perhaps that explains why he prefers to defend the enemies of the west. In an earlier thread he attacked the use of nuclear weapons against Germany's Japanese allies. Is that some kind of latent loyalty towards the Wermacht coming to the surface perhaps?
Many Germans have relatives who fought for the Wermacht. It goes with the territory of living in a post-World War II world. I'm not sure they feel the need to use that as an excuse for their own choices and actions today. Yet NP seems to claim that as a right and the trend on here is to indulge him.
I have (or had, he died a few years ago) a relative who fought in the Normandy landings in the Royal Marines. Why do I thnk that if I tried to use that as an excuse for my views I would be shouted down?
No Prophet has some history of trollism in this area. I'm surprised the mods take such a lenient view of his deliberate attempts to offend people, but still, that's entirely their purview.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
No Prophet has some history of trollism in this area.
How transparent. You've certainly made me feel extremely well disposed towards NP with your own provocative post anyway, which is quite an achievement. One can't really believe you meant any of it seriously, of course.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
No Prophet has some history of trollism in this area. I'm surprised the mods take such a lenient view of his deliberate attempts to offend people, but still, that's entirely their purview.
hosting/
We don't take a lenient view of posters accusing others of being trolls or making personal attacks, as you well know, so stop now. If you want to dispute hosting, take it to the Styx.
/hosting
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Perhaps that explains why he prefers to defend the enemies of the west.
Last time I looked, Germany was considered 'west'.
You can't (well, clearly you can, but don't complain when we point and laugh) expect to be taken even remotely seriously if you can't differentiate between one view of the west (liberal democratic) which I presume you like, and all the others (social democratic, absolute monarchy, feudalism, socialist, communist, fascist, mercantilism) which also arose in the west.
Or is it simply that you don't know enough to argue coherently and instead spew out some recycled right-wing bilge?
[code. And raised hostly eyebrow]
[ 22. November 2013, 09:39: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[code. And raised hostly eyebrow]
Doffs cap. Gets back to work...
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0