COMMENTS:
Voted : Can you speak Japanese?
We know how you feel about soldiers. This ballot is no surprise.
LCD, not to be rude, but I really think even asking that question is a bit over the line. Don't you know history? Look at all the talk and apeasment then did leading up to WWII to try and "work with Hitler." Did it work? I think history proves it did NOT work and only made things worse.
Before making such a harsh judgement and over-generaling, maybe people should study history more. Sorry, just my opinion.
"They chose a profession to kill human beings"
And that quote is really a bit much.
^ what Patch said
As a serviceman who has only just returned from fighting in Helmand, Afghanistan i find this disgusting talk. EVERY MARINE or SOLDIER, sailor or wahtever out there will at some point engage in this kind of macho talk. Its a by product of the job we do. Its there in black and white when we sign up for the career we choose..in my case as a British Airborne soldier if i remember corectly it was along the lines of "i in applying for the British Army accept the responsibilities that such an engagement will Carry"..i.e the use of lethal force, taking life to preserve life and the fact that my own life TOO will at times be at risk.
Many a time i've said to the lads, "i wish i could have got a few more" or "i wish i could have taken more down while i was out there"..your point is?? do you not stop to think ..hang on a minute..these young men have been out fighting for me to have the freedom of speech i so often take for granted, and are seeing their friends wounded, often killed??? i bet you havent even seen how it is from our side..more concerned with the killing of the enemy. Believe me when you've seen one of your closest mates aged 26 scrubbed off the face of the earth in as many seconds you'd want to "maybe shoot enough of them , maybe next time".
Im not having a go at you LCD and i DO see what your getting at here. But believe me you'd vent too especially after a drink as these lads have. I've done it many time since joining back when i was 16 and im sure i will many times in the future. YES its a sad fact we do kill, but there is no magic script to follow "follow this and nobody dies".
My (USMC) cousin is in Iraq. He is 20 years old. His family is so proud of him. When he talks of interacting with little kids and families, you just know that he is secure in having chosen to join the Marines.
Surely, LCD, you must know that these same soldiers who mean nothing good to you, are the ones who are stationed around the world helping victims of natural disasters, et c. Soldiers are not 'killing machines'. No. They are much much more.
Perhaps, LCD, you had a bad day. I hope you will rethink this ballot inference.
Voted : It's politicians that are responsible for errors
While there are a few criminals in every profession, most soldiers are people who have families and face danger, and some wars are necessary.
What patch, larry, Brit_ariborne, BL, and skylab said. Ditto.
I appreciate the comments. I know my new views weren't going to be popular, as a pacifist, I am becoming more and more reluctant to support the armed forces when I see things like that.
veterans day I believe was modeled after the armistice day, which celebrates the day when guns went silent after WW1. I suppose celebrating the day when the war ended feels comfortable for me.
by LCD on Mon Nov 12, 07 12:32pm
[+]
and welcome back Brit_airborne, I am glad you made it back safely.
by LCD on Mon Nov 12, 07 12:37pm
[+]
I see your point LCD. But the problems arises when people don't make the distinction between regular soldiers and politicians. Soldiers don't declare war...politicians do. So for me, and I think many others, suppurt of our Troops is key...doesn't mean you have to support the war exactly, but you can't take it out on the Soldiers. How can anyone supprort war? If it's totally unavoidable, that's one thing, but if it's just a war for nothing, that's different. I think the Troops feel the same way. Anyway, I support our Troops completely.
au contraire.
I am making that distinction.
it's true, soldiers do not declare wars, chickhawk politicians do.
I am strictly talking about someone who (in peacetime or in war) join the military as a career choice, or in interim.
They all know what being soldier entails.(believe it or not, I was seriously considering joining national guard in college)
while doing good deeds is admirable, you can join peace corps or any other number of other groups to do good.
what is the attraction? Patriotism? shiny uniforms? discipline? signing bonus? or being able to use multimilliondollar killing machines without consequences?
by LCD on Mon Nov 12, 07 3:02pm
[+]
Okay. I guess you feel strongly about it. That's your right. Though I will tell you, I think it is reprehensible to make such broad sweeping generalizations and assumptions. Many people join the military because it is their ONLY way to get ahead: e.g. Training, college, etc. Feel however you want, but I think you're being unreasonable.
LCD, answer me this: do people become Police officers because they want to shoot people? I mean logically, being in Law enforcement factually means you will, at some point, be faced with apprehending a criminal and that means that statistically, you will have to draw your gun at some point. So if that's how you feel about the military, one can fairly assume that is how you feel about the Police.
:) Sorry, but I have more questions. So, can you answer me this:
In the case of Iraqs invasion of Kuwait. I've read that factually, it was a totally unprovoked attack by Iraq against a much smaller and weaker, innocent people, are you saying you are against people (other nations) taking up arms to help drive out an invading army?
Next question: are you saying that in times of great national strife, lets say one in which a government is totally opressing and killing it's people, you would be against those people rising up, forming a counter-armed force and driving that government out of power?
Next question: lets say that tomorrow, China sent a hoarde of 10 million soldiers to invade Canada to take their oil. Are you saying you would NOT support Canadians joining thier military to throw China out and that you would not support Americans joining up too to drive China out?
Just curious :)
good points by patch.
same argument applies for police, though in different degrees.
I never thought using lethal forces by police was the right thing to do. In fact, I joined a company to develop nonlethal methods to be used by police.
I haven't seen a lot of police using high tech weapons to bomb city blocks, because there were drug kingpins in one of the houses.
As a deontological pacifist, I would not end the life of another under any circumstances, but I do believe in massive amounts of preventive measures to prevent being in that position.
As for kuwati invasion. Saddam basically hinted that he will do so to his US contacts. If US made it unequvocably clear his invasion wouldn't be tolerated, then the invasion would have never taken place.
Rather, if US didn't arm Saddam to the teeth, he wouldn't have been the problem that he turned out to be.
for the dictatorial government issure, I would ask Gandhi and Dr King about their methods.
lastly about chinese invasion, I think we have enough technology to prevent it from happening, (at least now) before it ever came to that.
people have different way of handling things. I do appreciate you tolerating my unpatriotic rant :)
by LCD on Mon Nov 12, 07 4:37pm
[+]
"Many people join the military because it is their ONLY way to get ahead: e.g. Training, college, etc."
PRECISELY.... RIGHT ON THE NOSE!
now, as a society, can we give people another way? and if given another way, would people take the same choice????
by LCD on Mon Nov 12, 07 4:39pm
[+]
LCD, your paint brush time has too wide a broad stroke.
I served in the U.S. Air Force on a base that trained pilots to fly.
Not all Veterans are 'Veterans of Foreign War" which seems to be the category that you want to lump all people who served in the military in.
Well sorry LCD, but I don't think you answered my questions. You seem intent on pinning it all on the United States. In fact, to say "if we hadn't armed Saddam to the teeth" is really a bogus argument. And once again, I've read the historical account and Saddam was warned by the United States and European powers not to invade Kuwait. As for your unpatriotic rant, I think you may want to ask yourself if you're blinded by some kind of irrational bias that is clouding your judgement. Sorry, once again I'm not trying to be rude, but if you read your comments again, it's pretty clear you have your mind made up and not amount of logic is going to change it. So there is no debate because you seem unwilling to look at reality (I mean you cannot be unaware that we are not the only nation in the world to have an all volunteer military and that in many countries, they use college education and career training as a methods of "reward" for military service, right?)
"for the dictatorial government issure, I would ask Gandhi and Dr King about their methods."
Totally bogus reasoning. One, Dr. King was not revolting against anything. He was trying to inact social change. If you knew history, you'd know that in fact, the Federal government was inacting laws to prevent racism on an institutional level. Dr. King was trying to move people on a social level.
As for Ghandi, there was massive violence during his struggle on both sides. Just because he spoke out against it, does not mean that the violence did not have an effect on helping to end British rule.
What I see here is a case in which you have your mind made up and without rational thought, you've decided that the United States is onc again, in your view, the most evil nation on earth. Maybe this isn't the place for you then :) Or shall I call you Ghandi from now on? :)
lastly about chinese invasion, I think we have enough technology to prevent it from happening, (at least now) before it ever came to that.
by LCD on Mon Nov 12, 07 4:37pm
May I ask what that technology is? So are you then supporting the use of said technology to prevent it? So much for Pacifism. I would have thought you'd just let it happen. I mean that is what a Pacifist would do. Right?
"as I pass, and I couldn't help overhearing their conversation.
they are talking about combat duty, and one says "I didn't shoot enough of them, maybe next time". "
by LCD
Until you're in the shoes they were and saw the horrors that they have, you'll never understand by what they mean when they say, "I didn't shoot enough of them, maybe next time".
I've got several friends, family, and aqaintances who've served in everything from WWII to the current war in Iraq. I've heard stories regarding the enemies they were fighting that would make your blood boil. And still, since I was not in their shoes, I'll never fully know what they went through.
"So much for Pacifism. I would have thought you'd just let it happen. I mean that is what a Pacifist would do. Right?"
that's pretty naive.
by LCD on Mon Nov 12, 07 10:08pm
[+]
"you're blinded by some kind of irrational bias"
my bias is that I do not support killing of another human beings, and the distate of what I overheard.
" Not all Veterans are 'Veterans of Foreign War" "
true. as I said, I actually considered joining the national guard. at that time. all veterans are not VFW's - though not by their choice.
by LCD on Mon Nov 12, 07 10:12pm
[+]
"Soldiers do NOT chose a profession to kill human beings"
Okay so what does compel someone to enlist, other than answers patch provided?
Any christians here? whatever happened to thou shalt not kill?
by LCD on Mon Nov 12, 07 10:13pm
[+]
"Thou shalt not kill" is a rough translation of "thou shalt not murder". It's a mistranslation. Killing in self defense or for the cause of war is different than Joe Blow murdering someone for pocket change.
LCD, I sort of see how you feel about this, but you said that as a deontological pacifist, you would not end the life of another under any circumstances.
I think that is admirable and obviously, the right way to be, but then you sort of head in the direction that you would. I'm just not sure I understand why your personal values and beliefs have to do with soldiers? In some cases you seem to approve of the use of the military and in some cases no. I guess from my perspective, people can't have it both ways. I don't know. It's a very confusing issue. I think you're being a Pacifist is great, but I don't think passing judgement on others who join the military is right. That's just where I am on this. :)
patch, it took me 40 years of my life to come to my belief system, and I don't expect you to understand it especially through a website.
Sometimes I do ham it up a bit, saying things like go track saddam down and kill him etc. I am merely trying to talk the talk that people would understand, and much like a jewish person talking about eating bacon, saying that they want a nice BLT doesn't necessarily mean that when they are faced with the said sandwich that they will take a bite.
Most common question asked to pacifists are that what if someone threaten you/loved ones, wouldn't you take arms to defend them.
That question is much like asking what would you do if someone is pointing a gun at your wife and child, and ask you to choose which one they should kill, and which should live.
I believe that with enough preventive measures and maintainance, you will never have to make such a choice. Or at least we SHOULD have enough preventive measures that EVERYONE should not have to make life/death choices.
by LCD on Tue Nov 13, 07 10:50am
[+]
I think I understand better now. I'm a Pacifist by nature too. For me, war would and should always be the very, very last resort. But I guess where I differ is that I respect and try to support our soldiers. I guess to me, the vast majority of them are good people who do NOT want to be in a war. And like you said...it's Chicken Hawks that send them there. I think you should support our troops, but not the politicians that make war for NO reason.
yeah, and remember, I was just venting right after that happened at the hotel I was staying at.
as some have pointed out, it's a gross generalization on my part, (though it's not the question that I asked) based on my one experience.
by LCD on Tue Nov 13, 07 4:46pm
[+]
Voted : It's politicians that are responsible for errors
"Sometimes I do ham it up a bit, saying things like go track saddam down and kill him etc. I am merely trying to talk the talk that people would understand..."
by LCD
I am sorry, but you are not a real pacifist then. Real pacifists do not talk the violent talk of others out of show or to make points. They get their messages across without resorting to such. They live and speak how they believe.
I spent my early years growing up around the pacifist Buddhists of Cambodia. I am afraid to say, but you have a lot to learn, friend.
Though Buddhist myself, I have great respect for the soldiers. It is not a way of life that I would choose, but because it is not my life and I have no way of seeing through their eyes, I cannot condemn them. If it were not for them, a great many people would live in bondage because of the fact that violence and iron fists are all that some leaders and countries know and listen to. It is sad, but it is reality.
Voted : Can you speak Japanese?
We chaperoned some Junior ROTC cadets who were passing out poppies to honor veterans. Many shoppers shared their thoughts including, "I joined the military to repay this country for what my family and I enjoy here" and "Thank you for keeping us safe"(said to a WWII veteran.)
Several of the cadets shared their family veterans' service with us. There was love in their eyes! These cadets are The Future of this country.
Pacifists are legitimate only where there is Utopia. There is no Utopia.
with respect to the guest user, that's like me saying you are an animal because you breathe.
don't define others because I might start defining you.
by LCD on Fri Nov 16, 07 12:37am
[+]
|
