Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Soldiers. Noble Warrior and Soulless Pawn.

Soldiers Noble Warrior Soulless Pawn Culture War

  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#1 Fade_2_Bolivion

Fade_2_Bolivion
  • Just Washed Ashore
  • 49 posts

Posted 11 April 2004 - 10:18 AM

Soldiers evoke unsettled unrest.  

On one hand they are viewed as brutal peacekeepers who use violent aggression on those with a similar, yet equally disturbed mind.  On the other hand they are pawns ordered by witless leaders (Dubya, I'm looking in your direction) to serve out the their lord's fleeting whims.  

As an American it's hard to know what to feel and how to explain it to children.  

With today being a Christian holiday, and in the spirit of messianiac ressurection celebrating life and rebirth, how do Christians feel about the use of soldiers in Iraq?  

Being a buddhist, this runs directly against a universal sense of humanity.  I never understood how the devout stood by and applauded a mass slaughter in another country under the guise of freedom.  

Please, if you will, to enlighten.

#2 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 11 April 2004 - 10:55 AM

Soldiers are sometimes fathers, mothers, the kid next door, or the friend you have known for years.  They are those who do a difficult and dangerous job that needs to be done.  They are those who give their time and place their lives on the line for their country.  They do a job that they often neither get the recognition nor credit that they deserve to have.  

And the last thing anyone should ever call then is a "souless pawn".

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 11 April 2004 - 10:56 AM.

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#3 jon3831

jon3831

    Iolanthe's evil conservative twin

  • Islander
  • 2,601 posts

Posted 11 April 2004 - 11:22 AM

Anyone who thinks soldiers are "souless" should take a look at Sgt. Hook's Weblog.

Read the whole thing. Especially the parts where he chronicles leaving his wife and children behind to go to Afghanistan.

That is all.
"The issue is not war and peace, rather, how best to   preserve our freedom."
                    --General Russell E. Dougherty, USAF

WWCELeMD?

#4 Corwin

Corwin

    fortitudo ac honor

  • Islander
  • 1,695 posts

Posted 11 April 2004 - 12:00 PM

Quote

On one hand they are viewed as brutal peacekeepers who use violent aggression on those with a similar, yet equally disturbed mind. On the other hand they are pawns ordered by witless leaders (Dubya, I'm looking in your direction) to serve out the their lord's fleeting whims.


Is this your view or someone else's view?  I find your entire argument flawed and overly simplistic, but that's just me.  I'm also not sure if I can articulate an appropiate repsonse right now but I'll try.

Aggression for it's own sake is wrong.  Aggression in defense of peace or in defense of others is not only right, it's wrong to NOT do so if it is in your abilities to do something about it.  To do otherwise would disturb that universal sense of humanity you were talking about.  This does not make for a disturbed mind or make someone brutal for using aggression to combat aggression.  Soldiers have (at least in free countries) not only the right, but the duty to refuse illegal orders, as well as having more background information on the job that they are performing than at any time in history.  This makes them far from "pawns".

It seems to me you haven't heard the soldier's stories about how on their days off, they go to go a village and help build hospitals and schools and homes.  Or that they are sometimes shot at and killed by the opposition while doing this purely humanitarian task.  

The ones that are killing indiscriminently soldier and civilian alike are the ones you should be talking about that have a disturbed mind as well as the "leaders" that told them to march out and do it.  


Quote

I never understood how the devout stood by and applauded a mass slaughter in another country under the guise of freedom.


I don't know how the World does this either.....  But most of the ones applauding are the fanatics or the very ignorant.  By and large, those are the only ones that are celebrating these deaths.  And don't mistake "guise of freedom" for actual Freedom.  It's not Freedom when someone is using naked aggression and fear against helpless people to enrich themselves regardless of what it does to those people.

If you're talking about something else or something specific, I'm afraid you'll have to clarify your position.


Quote

As an American it's hard to know what to feel and how to explain it to children.


You'll have to make up your own mind about what you feel, hopefully on an informed basis.  As far as explaining this to children....  How old?   I understood naked aggression when I saw it from about the age of 4  (bullies are bullies no matter how big their army is).  What the Coalition is doing is standing up to the bullies and taking the schoolyard back from them.  

The best way to explain the situation is to teach them a sense of History, encourage them to learn more, and let them make up their own minds....  That's part of growing up.. the ability to think for yourself and make informed decisions, and you can't do that without both an education and information.  For more perspective, I understood the situation in Iran very well during the hostage crisis when I was age 8-9.
"The Enemy is upon us, so Lock and Load, Brothers.  The Emperor Calls and the Forces of Chaos must be driven back.  Though all of us will fall, none of us shall fail!"

#5 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 11 April 2004 - 12:25 PM

Corwin, on Apr 11 2004, 10:58 AM, said:

Quote

I never understood how the devout stood by and applauded a mass slaughter in another country under the guise of freedom.


I don't know how the World does this either.....  But most of the ones applauding are the fanatics or the very ignorant.  By and large, those are the only ones that are celebrating these deaths.  And don't mistake "guise of freedom" for actual Freedom.  It's not Freedom when someone is using naked aggression and fear against helpless people to enrich themselves regardless of what it does to those people.

If you're talking about something else or something specific, I'm afraid you'll have to clarify your position.
Your response seems to be about the mass murder committed by the Baathists that are now overthrown, but I believe the comment you're responding to, ludicrous as this is, was accusing our own troops of mass murder and accusng their freeing the people from the Baathists of being a "guise" for that mass murder.

#6 Corwin

Corwin

    fortitudo ac honor

  • Islander
  • 1,695 posts

Posted 11 April 2004 - 12:32 PM

Bingo!

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who read it that way Delvo.  I was also referring to the celebrations after 9-11, as well as after any majorly reported terrorist strike.


Corwin

Edited by Corwin, 11 April 2004 - 12:34 PM.

"The Enemy is upon us, so Lock and Load, Brothers.  The Emperor Calls and the Forces of Chaos must be driven back.  Though all of us will fall, none of us shall fail!"

#7 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 11 April 2004 - 02:54 PM

Fade_2_Bolivion, on Apr 11 2004, 08:16 AM, said:

Soldiers evoke unsettled unrest. 

On one hand they are viewed as brutal peacekeepers who use violent aggression on those with a similar, yet equally disturbed mind.  On the other hand they are pawns ordered by witless leaders (Dubya, I'm looking in your direction) to serve out the their lord's fleeting whims.
Those are rather loaded terms, so must disagree with the way your argument is phrased.

Soldiers are simply men and women, just like you and me, with all of the same hopes and fears as anyone else. The difference is that they have decided to dedicate their careers toward the safety of the rest of us, even at the risk of death to themselves. How many people do you know that are willing to fight and die for your safety? That's what soldiers do when they have to, and they don't even know you. In a way, they are similar to police, paramedics, and firefighters. Some soldiers may have joined the military because it gave them an outlet for aggressive tendencies, but these types do not last long in the disciplined, team oriented atmosphere of a modern military. The vast majority of people who become soldiers do so because they want to serve their country by protecting it from harm.

This involves a certain amount of trust. Since soldiers are working to protect the nation, they must follow the orders given by the country's leaders and trust that the leaders know best how to keep everyone safe. If they didn't follow the orders of the leaders then the alternative would be a military dictatorship, anarchy, or some lopsided imbalance of power like you see in certain South American nations where the military rules through proxies - and that wouldn't be true to the principles of a democracy at all. So they must follow orders, or they risk destroying the very thing that they are trying to protect. This doesn't mean that they are pawns - they are actually idealists dedicating their lives to the service of their country by following the orders of its duly elected leaders.

Now, do the leaders deserve that trust? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. I would say that the present leadership in the White House has betrayed the trust American soldiers have in them by recklessly throwing the soldiers into dangerous situations that do not involve protecting America, while simultaneously diverting resources from more important areas like the hunt for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. They send the military off to do jobs like occupying Iraq without ensuring that the troop strength is large enough to finish the job, forcing soldiers and reservists into longer and longer tours while the White House refuses to admit that it didn't plan things properly. And while the soldiers are off fighting for them abroad, the same Administration cuts the benefits that military people can receive. So overall, I'd say that the current crop of leaders, most of them lifetime civilians who have never served in the military, does not deserve the trust of soldiers at all.

But the sad thing is that the soldiers must serve the whims and wishes of the White House, because any other course of action would attack the principles that American democracy is built on. So it is important for ordinary citizens to make these leaders account for the wasteful, disrespectful way they treat their soldiers.

Edited by Kevin Street, 11 April 2004 - 02:56 PM.


#8 Fade_2_Bolivion

Fade_2_Bolivion
  • Just Washed Ashore
  • 49 posts

Posted 12 April 2004 - 12:05 AM

Allow me to clarify one key point.

When a soldier willingly enters into a contract saying it's okay to kill people then they are no longer just like 'you' and 'me'.  They forfeit their humanity in the process.  

Enlisting in the military means being an active part of a mass genocide.  By removing all the clever media labels and it comes down to one thing; killing someone when told to.    

It is never okay to condone killing under any circumstance.  There is always a higher road to take.

Edited by Javert Rovinski, 12 April 2004 - 01:06 AM.


#9 Josh

Josh

    He stares...

  • Islander
  • 13,774 posts

Posted 12 April 2004 - 12:12 AM

^

Tell that to everyone else. Frankly, I don't think it is your RIGHT to tell people that they have lost their humanity.
"THE UNICORNS ARE NOT TO BE TRIFLED WITH!" - John Burke.

#10 Fade_2_Bolivion

Fade_2_Bolivion
  • Just Washed Ashore
  • 49 posts

Posted 12 April 2004 - 12:17 AM

Josh, on Apr 12 2004, 05:10 AM, said:

^

Tell that to everyone else. Frankly, I don't think it is your RIGHT to tell people that they have lost their humanity.
It certainly isn't their right to kill anyone else now is it?

#11 Josh

Josh

    He stares...

  • Islander
  • 13,774 posts

Posted 12 April 2004 - 12:18 AM

^

I think you are more than aware that it's done in self-defense. This entire argument is ludicrous.
"THE UNICORNS ARE NOT TO BE TRIFLED WITH!" - John Burke.

#12 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 12 April 2004 - 12:20 AM

Fade I admire the thoery you espouse. How ever given human design flaws I doubt if such a utopia would ever exist. Human beings are flawed, we are agressive, we are survival oriented, and often much worse.

That said. Fade no sir, you are wrong. There is NOT always a 'higher road' and to condem those that put themselves in harms way to protect others is NOT souless, is NOT mindless, is NOT defective...

I'm not Catholic, or even Christian, but there is a phrse out there that says it all...

"Greater love hath no man than he that gives his life for another."

I'm sorry but I can not sit here and read that you put down those who defend others.

Enlisting in the army is NOT being a part of mass gencide...

and I'm stopping now before I say something personal.

Edited by Shalamar, 12 April 2004 - 01:09 AM.


#13 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 12 April 2004 - 12:22 AM

Fade_2_Bolivion, on Apr 11 2004, 10:03 PM, said:

It is never okay to condone killing under any circumstance.  There is always a higher road to take.
But what if someone is threatening to kill your family and friends? I'm very much against killing too, Fade, but there are some circumstances where it has to be done, and no one should be considered immoral for doing so at those times. Namely, self defense and the defense of others. If soldiers weren't willing to defend us, then we'd be in very serious trouble, because we'd have to do it ourselves. Unfortunately, the world is full of people who would love to see us dead, for one reason or another. And until that changes, we will need soldiers.

That doesn't condone everything that the military has done, but I certainly don't think that soldiery is an immoral profession. It is a challenging, often tedious, sometimes terrifying, and sometimes deadly occupation, and the people who do it are to be commended for their courage, imo. It's the leaders who deserve criticism, not the soldiers.

Edited by Kevin Street, 12 April 2004 - 01:42 AM.


#14 Jid

Jid

    Mad Prophet of Funk

  • Islander
  • 12,554 posts

Posted 12 April 2004 - 12:25 AM

Fade_2_Bolivion, on Apr 11 2004, 11:03 PM, said:

Allow me to clarify one key point.

When a soldier willingly enters into a contract saying it's okay to kill people then they are no longer just like 'you' and 'me'.  They forfeit their humanity in the process. 

<snip> 

By removing all the clever media labels and it comes down to one thing; killing someone when told to.   

<snip>

It is never okay to It is never okay to condone killing under any circumstancecondone killing under any circumstance.  There is always a higher road to take.
Except that you've hamstrung your argument by trying to take some form of Duty Ethics, and forcing them into an absolute state, when most philosophers agree that the only way to safely follow such an ethical theory is by adopting some form of "prima facie" where while some duties are important, they are overridable.

Using such phrases as "It is never okay to condone killing under any circumstance" would imply, amongst other things, that when confronted by a murderer, your only choice is to patiently wait for your death.

More to the point, you seem set on misconstruing military service as a set of hired killers whose sole job is to kill people, and nothing but.

In short, you've leveled them with machines.

However, this is not the case of military action, such as the actions being undertaken in Iraq right now.  

The job of the soldiers is to keep the peace, and prevent the former ruling elements that remain at large from seizing power back.  The fact that they are allowed to use lethal force when necessary does not mean they're hired to go in and slaughter.  It means if they come into contact with a pocket of resistance which intends to resist through armed combat, they're allowed to engage in that combat, to save their own lives, as well as stop these people.

Soldiers, Peacekeepers, and others like them are not hired murderers.  They're not soulless, they're not machines.  They're men and women who've promised to serve their country with their very lives.  They're people who've chosen to say that when push comes to shove, we will shove back, so that the rest of our nation doesn't have to.

In short, they're g*d d*mned heroes.  They deserve respect, they deserve admiration.  They certainly don't deserve to have their humanity questioned because they're willing to die for their country.

I may not have supported the actions that lead those soldiers into Iraq in the first place.  But I sure as hell want every last one to come home alive.
cervisiam tene rem specta

#15 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 12 April 2004 - 12:27 AM

Quote

Fade_2_Bolivion: When a soldier willingly enters into a contract saying it's okay to kill people then they are no longer just like 'you' and 'me'. They forfeit their humanity in the process.

Let me string out your logic here to another conclusion: If I stated what I actually thought right now I would be saying something that is against board policy.

1) I assume you are not in Federal Prison for Tax evasion since you are actually posting.
2) Your tax dollars are very happily in my opinion are buying nice weapons systems meant to kill people and break things.
3) You are therefore supporting the killing of people very directly by providing aid and comfort.
4) You are directly drawing benefits of the work and sacrifices those men and women in our military are making.
5) You are nothing but a hypocrite by calling them forfeit of their humanity when you sit at home paying your taxes and sitting in your nice comfortable house.
6) If someone is the soulless less than human being by your own logic it is the hypocrite who sits at home paying their taxes while insulting those who are actually out their risking their lives for something they believe in.  

Quote

Fade_2_Bolivion:: Enlisting in the military means being an active part of a mass genocide. By removing all the clever media labels and it comes down to one thing; killing someone when told to.

Put your money where your mouth is and stop paying our taxes for they fund the military.  If you actually believe that filth then your actions show that you are no better and even worse than those in the military you are insulting.  

Quote

Fade_2_Bolivion: It is never okay to condone killing under any circumstance. There is always a higher road to take.

Again I say taxes!   You are insulting the very profession that lets you have the freedom to spout off nonsense.

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 12 April 2004 - 12:28 AM.

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#16 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 12 April 2004 - 12:32 AM

That's quite enough F2B. Your opinion on soldiers is, as always, your opinion. When you accuse everybody who disagrees with you of being ignorant, you only undermine yourself, and you blatantly violate our community standards. I respect your pacifism, but that type of arrogance is one thing that doesn't fly here. Please edit your post accordingly.

Thanks,
Rov
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#17 jon3831

jon3831

    Iolanthe's evil conservative twin

  • Islander
  • 2,601 posts

Posted 12 April 2004 - 12:39 AM

Fade_2_Bolivion, on Apr 11 2004, 10:03 PM, said:

Enlisting in the military means being an active part of a mass genocide.
Allow me to engage in a little definition:

Quote

genˇoˇcide   n.  The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

Source: The American HeritageŽ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Now then.

Back that statement up. Prove to us that the Coalition is engaging in the systematic destruction of the Iraqi people and culture.
"The issue is not war and peace, rather, how best to   preserve our freedom."
                    --General Russell E. Dougherty, USAF

WWCELeMD?

#18 Fade_2_Bolivion

Fade_2_Bolivion
  • Just Washed Ashore
  • 49 posts

Posted 12 April 2004 - 12:43 AM

EDIT. See AQG for details.

Edited by Javert Rovinski, 12 April 2004 - 01:07 AM.


#19 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 12 April 2004 - 12:46 AM

One word!  Taxes...  Answer that one.  :glare:
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#20 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 12 April 2004 - 12:47 AM

This is silly.  A soldier per se is morally neutral.  Soldiers threw open the gates of Dachau and saved the world from fascism.  Other soldiers massacred civilians at My Lai.  Soldiers do what their political leaders tell them to.  Blaming soldiers for bad foreign policy is like blaming oxygen for a forest fire.
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Soldiers, Noble Warrior, Soulless Pawn, Culture, War

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users