|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Sympathy for troubled soldiers? Don't think so.
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
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.
![[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.
"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.
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
L'organist ... embrace him. Don't objectify him. Like this does you ...
ME TOO. Is the answer. From which we move on ALL together.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
3rdFooter
Shipmate
# 9751
|
Posted
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
--------------------
3F - Shunter in the sidings of God's Kingdom
Posts: 602 | From: outskirts of Babylon | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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...)
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squirrel
Shipmate
# 3040
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"The moral is to the physical as three is to one."
- Napoleon
"Five to one."
- George S. Patton
Posts: 1014 | From: Gotham City - Brain of the Great Satan | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
And there is a big difference between turning your own cheek and turning someone else's cheek for them.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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 ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
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.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Reminds me of that old anti-war T-shirt - 'Join the army - visit exotic locations, meet new people, broaden the mind, and kill people'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Sorry, private is not the rank. Although it was up until 1923.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I'm very black and white on that: no more war.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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...
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
