Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
@Telly03 Troops based in Japan aren't subject to Japanese law. In one case, the military allowed 3 soldiers to be tried in Japanese court, but it didn't have to, it chose to. I don't know what the agreement is with other countries.
I don't know about the argument that there's a lower level of crime by military personnel than by civilians in the US. On the one hand, it seems that way. On the other hand, atrocities happen, as in Vietnam. But ok, barring atrocities, maybe you're right. But Knight struck me as such a moral kind of guy, it seemed natural to ask him to be the watchdog. He's so into Doing The Right Thing, you know? And that's not a bad thing, not at all, but if that's the role he wants, then why not take it all the way?
@MindGate Admittedly I'm coming across fairly passionate about this and I understand your sarcasm, my apologies if it seems as if I want some kind of praise. I don't. I just want to make it clear that sometimes it isn't always about fighting fire with fire, from someone who has experienced and seen a lot of devastation.
...the troops are already held at a higher discipline standard than civilians in that the are subject to US and foreign laws as well as the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
The problem is that munitions have no standard. Soldiers may (and this is highly unlikely) be held, rarely, to some kind of standard with regards to handgun use, but beyond that, if bombs/shells/mortars take out civilians, there is no consequence.
The problem is that the tools of modern war obliterate responsibility along with the victims.
There will not be any grand moment of decision-making, for a soldier. If you are told to fire, and you do not fire, you will receive a dishonorable discharge at best, or a court-martial at worst. When you sign that paper, you forfeit your legal right to selectively protect "women and children."
I often wonder what war was like in the days of swords and spears.
Seeing your enemy close up as you gut them with your gladius, seeing their life drain from their body with their one last dying breathe as they look you in the eyes - how could anyone do that? You'd see the humanity in them when you are up-close and personal with them.
When you shoot them from a quarter mile away, they aren't really humans. They are the enemy. Your target. Your objective. They aren't the dying man 2 feet away from you. You dehumanize them. You are the good guys, they are the bad guys.
Was it always this way? I just don't see how this could be... even though it probably was...
When you sign that paper, you forfeit your legal right to selectively protect "women and children."
Really? Isn't there something about minimizing "collateral damage"?
But Telly wasn't talking about a combat situation. He was following up on my comment, which was about how military personnel conduct themselves when they're off the base on their time off, among the local civilian population. Or even if they're off base but on the job, and an accident happens that gets covered up.
When you sign that paper, you forfeit your legal right to selectively protect "women and children."
Really? Isn't there something about minimizing "collateral damage"?
But Telly wasn't talking about a combat situation. He was following up on my comment, which was about how military personnel conduct themselves when they're off the base on their time off, among the local civilian population.
Definitely agree that if you're talking about off-duty crimes, being a watchdog would be a welcome and sadly necessary service to humanity.
As for minimizing collateral damage, if your actions are to the point that it's a matter of killing one child rather than four or five, for example, that's one murder too many.
I'm ex-service; I don't say this lightly. I know full well that even though I didn't carry a gun, I loaded planes which could have killed civilians. War is murder by another name. If you don't want to murder innocents, you have no business participating. It's easy to see in hindsight, but the young go into it eagerly only to come out wrecked. I know I'm being kind of harsh with the language, but that's because there's no turning back. Once you're in-country, the odds of your backing out are practically nil.
So if you don't want to kill people, get out now; once in-country, especially tank/infantry/close air support, you will kill women and kids. This is the tragic reality of the Middle East theater; there's no point in mincing words.
@Telly03 Troops based in Japan aren't subject to Japanese law. In one case, the military allowed 3 soldiers to be tried in Japanese court, but it didn't have to, it chose to. I don't know what the agreement is with other countries.
I don't know about the argument that there's a lower level of crime by military personnel than by civilians in the US. On the one hand, it seems that way. On the other hand, atrocities happen, as in Vietnam. But ok, barring atrocities, maybe you're right. But Knight struck me as such a moral kind of guy, it seemed natural to ask him to be the watchdog. He's so into Doing The Right Thing, you know? And that's not a bad thing, not at all, but if that's the role he wants, then why not take it all the way?
US military stationed in Japan or Okinawa are subject to their laws and we have had members serve time in their jail. I was stationed in Okinawa as a youngster and got into a bit of trouble... Had to deal with the police station first and paid a fine, then face the military discipline.
Troops are pretty good about looking out for each other... Its the whole chain of coomand thing where a NCO is also held responsible for their troops, on up tne chain... Yet there are still unfortunate ugly stories. People are people regardless of how you speak, dress, vote or earn a paycheck.
@dakini you are right though that infractions on-base in Japan are generally handled via military channels, but off-base crimes your returned to the military base when the Japanese are done with you.
.....The USA is mostly a force for good(right intention) in this world....
I disagree with the above statement, completely. In my view, The US has always appeared to have a gung-ho attitude which has either been as a result of a desire to conquer, or a desire for revenge. While there are an awful lot of US citizens who deplore this attitude, I find, from my experience, they are still a minority. One might view the US as a force for good, but I doubt their intentions.....
As Colin Powell once said, the only land Americans demand is enough to bury their dead. Would places like South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan be nearly as free today if not for the benevolent hegemony of the seas by the American navy?
There are by recent estimations I've seen, nearly 110,000 American young men buried in Europe, most of them in France, Belgium, England, Italy, and the Netherlands. What colonies did they conquer for America between 1917-45? Is this too American hubris?
You are correct Knight and know your history well. There are some people however and for whatever reason (or conspiracy theory), that can never pass up an opportunity to bash the US. Even if such people directly benefited from the sacrifices made by american boys over there. Nuff said.
Seriously though, you have to admit the way in which the US has conducted itself over the past 50+ years. As a nation, and by that I mean the way that the government/armed forces have acted, is like that of the popular kid at school. They get to do what they wish, throw their weight around and by-pass certain things that normal people would get in trouble for.
Anyway, things are changing (as they always do). It will not be long before the west is not in such a powerful situation as it is now. I still agree with what federica said, America does seem to have a gun-h attitude on the whole. It is a very unique place because it is no more than 350 years old (as known as the USA), but has come so far so quickly. IMO, it is kind of half deveolped and helf not.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
You are correct Knight and know your history well. There are some people however and for whatever reason (or conspiracy theory), that can never pass up an opportunity to bash the US. Even if such people directly benefited from the sacrifices made by american boys over there. Nuff said.
Namaste
There are those who dislike the US and bash it, there are also those who love the US and criticize it because they want it to live up to higher ideals. I also benefit from the mass killing and dislocation of the Native Americans who lived here before Europeans came. So is that the bar for if something is moral or not? Whether I benefit from it?
In the 'real' world we often have to make tough choices that cause pain and suffering to some. This is a Buddhist discussion though and there's a long tradition of buddhists leaving the 'real' world in order to live a more ethical life. As lay practicioners we do have to make ethically complicated choices but we shouldn't pretend that there's no dark side just because it seems a neccessity.
There are some cases in world history where it really does seem war was necessary, or at least unavoidable.
The wars in the Middle East are not those wars.
I believe strongly that we are creating enemies where there were none; we are dooming our children and grandchildren to perpetual "actions" in the Middle East which have no beginning and no end - a 100 year Vietnam, with no tangible benefit to America.
Do not make the mistake of confusing shooting with strategy.
As I have said before on here, I have a friend who is from Iraq and she moved to London with her family about 5 years ago. She had the money to do so because her family had money and she now lives in Kensington London. Anyway, she has said of schools being bombed, houses of friends, random bombings. It is far from black and white.
@dakini you are right though that infractions on-base in Japan are generally handled via military channels, but off-base crimes your returned to the military base when the Japanese are done with you.
OK. If you say so. That's not what the website I posted a link to says, so I was going by that. Thanks for the insight, for sharing your personal experience.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited December 2011
There are some people however and for whatever reason (or conspiracy theory), that can never pass up an opportunity to bash the US. Even if such people directly benefited from the sacrifices made by american boys over there. Nuff said. Namaste
If you're alluding to WWII and the sacrifices made by 'American boys over here' I would respectively remind you that the USA strongly resisted joining the war effort, until after the debacle of Pearl Harbour. Then, it suddenly got personal. And that conflict was partially the responsibility of a breakdown and lack of communication, sheer carelessness and stubbornness - on the American side.
And just as many sacrifices were made by boys from every country participating. Soldiers have mutual respect. When you die by stepping on a bomb, you die the same way any other 'boy' does. A bomb doesn't care who it kills. But no soldier wants to see any ally die.
There are some people however and for whatever reason (or conspiracy theory), that can never pass up an opportunity to bash the US. Even if such people directly benefited from the sacrifices made by american boys over there. Nuff said. Namaste
If you're alluding to WWII and the sacrifices made by 'American boys over here' I would respectively remind you that the USA strongly resisted joining the war effort, until after the debacle of Pearl Harbour. Then, it suddenly got personal. And that conflict was partially the responsibility of a breakdown and lack of communication, sheer carelessness and stubbornness - on the American side.
And just as many sacrifices were made by boys from every country participating. Soldiers have mutual respect. When you die by stepping on a bomb, you die the same way any other 'boy' does. A bomb doesn't care who it kills. But no soldier wants to see any ally die.
I don't think I understand @federica , it may be because of the way I'm reading this, but it sounds like your saying that we shouldn't respect the sacrifices made by our WWII vets because the US waited until we were attacked, and the US shares the responsibility for the attack... is this correct?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited December 2011
see link I inserted, after searching. It wasn't, unfortunately, difficult.
Franklin D Roosevelt stitched his country up.
However, to suggest that you should not respect your country's WWII vets is very widely off the mark. But they should have no more - or less - respect than any other country's vets.
I live close to the Arizona Memorial and have visited several times, it is a very good tour, and free... and it is not hidden that we put Japan in a tough spot prior to the attack, mostly because of their war campaign though.
I'm glad you clarified for me that you don't feel that we shouldn't respect our vets... that's all I was asking for. Thanks
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I strongly disagree with the principle of conflict, war and killing. The thought of what these young men have to face, turns my stomach.
A very good friend of mine, called Arthur Palmer, who has unfortunately now died, was a USAF vet who chased the Germans back towards the French/German border, once they knew they has been defeated.
I was deeply privileged to play an active role in his quest for accurate details of his past, and putting the pieces of the last weeks of his active service together, after he had been shot down, in France. It was a journey of discovery which was at times, overwhelmingly moving. His children saw him with new eyes, they knew nothing of all of this....
He had only told his children that he joined the Air Force, because he knew he didn't have the stomach to watch a man die in face-to-face combat.
I personally feel many modern young soldiers probably feel the same way. I further suspect that when they are faced with the reality of blood, gore, guts, death and the loss of friends and comrades - the reality check is terrifying, and that many are in fact, frightened and must wish they could be anywhere else, but there....I don't believe any amount of training can ever prepare you for that.
Knight, You claim to have studied history, but your education is severely lacking, or perhaps you just decided to be selective in what you decided to learn. To understand history is to understand human behavior, they go hand in hand. Apparently the only behaviors you want to study are the ones that parallel your narrow vantage.
But, perhaps you've decided because you had your violent beating, that you will have the power in a situation where the bad men will get their come-upin's, even if they got away with it that one time, with you.
Is your choice to become this person because you truly feel this is the answer to the problem? Or are you blinded by your own feeling of vulnerability as well as a want for revenge on the bad people out there who victimize others?
I appreciate you taking the time to respond in such depth, but I'm a bit bewildered by some of what you said. I did not claim that my own numerous run-ins with violence (a few wins, a few losses in fights) had scarred me in any way or motivated me to go on some quest for revenge. I off-handedly mentioned the gang fight because I was a pacifist before the fight and wasn't one after it.
I've read plenty of history alright, and have just obviously come to a vastly different conclusion than your own. To me, history is a long tale of violent, bad human beings generally behaving atrociously towards poor, uninterested bystanders. Frankly, "love, peace, and togetherness" is a good way to get you killed when you are confronted by stone-faced killers who wish to make you a slave and who want absolute power.
What do you take away from the 20th century history, since you claim to be less selective in your knowledge than I? How would you stop genocide from happening to you or your neighbor? Just sing louder in church as you hear the screams? Do you know that far more people were murdered in brutal, awful ways in PEACETIME than in war in the 20th century? In China alone, this was the case! Not to mention the Soviet Union, the killing fields of Asia, Iraq, etc.
To answer your question, yes, I do think violence is an answer to some very serious problematic people. People who claim to be on a mission from God to "slay the unbelievers wherever you find them," who would exterminate whole races and religions, who would subjugate women to the level of cattle, would base YOUR life off of 7th century desert dictates...people who would create such misery for civilization deserve a good thrashing. So yes, I would like to see such people get their "come up-ins"
Will I have nightmares and regrets? Impossible to say. The image of all soldiers coming home with flashbacks and guilt is nonsense. I have met, for better or worse, close associates who killed Taliban by the dozens and sleep very soundly at night after tucking their children in for bed.
The sword as you mentioned is just a defence in its last resort. The wise lovely beings never uses it. As to conquer the world, you first has to master the mind. Once your mind is master, all people will benefit from your wisdom bliss and love. US has abundant lands, natural resources, brilliant people for both its country and sharing with other part of the world. Jesus or god never resorted weapons to interfere others :thumbsup:
Jesus or god never resorted weapons to interfere others :thumbsup:
Well except for John 2:15 “So he made a whip of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.”
Jesus or god never resorted weapons to interfere others :thumbsup:
No, God just killed people with his magic. No weapons needed. (unless you count plagues, water, fire, etc, as weapons)
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
If we all became monks and nuns who would grow the food and have the babies? We need people to continue to do that as well. So why did the Buddha and Buddhism to this day accept people into a life of monasticism? We do depend on those who use might to keep the peace just as monastics depend on lay followers for support. Does that mean we shouldn't have nuns and monks or we shouldn't have an army or police? Its different questions whether we should have a military or whether we ourselves should join the military. There's a lot of ugly business in this world but we don't have to be a part of it.
Does that mean we shouldn't have nuns and monks or we shouldn't have an army or police? Its different questions whether we should have a military or whether we ourselves should join the military. There's a lot of ugly business in this world but we don't have to be a part of it.
People sleep peacefully in their beds each night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -George Orwell
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I never volunteered them, that was their decision. And while I am truly respectful, and grateful for their individual actions in what they do - it still doesn't mean I have to either like it or approve of it. Neither would I opt to do it. MY choice.
I never volunteered them, that was their decision. And while I am truly respectful, and grateful for their individual actions in what they do - it still doesn't mean I have to either like it or approve of it. Neither would I opt to do it. MY choice.
Woefully... You both missed my point and made my point at the same time.
Thank You
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I was responding specifically to KoB. Your post makes sense.
People sleep peacefully in their beds each night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -George Orwell
With all due respect, standing ready and engaging in bad military strategy are two different things.
A lot of young drug dealers down my street are ready to do violence, too; it isn't the willingness to be violent which determines whether a war is justified or not.
I sleep less peacefully in my bed each night because bad strategy has started a war where none existed.
Iraq did not fund 9/11; other Middle East parties did. But since we are not willing to take on the actual parties, we bomb houses in Iraq and Afghanistan instead.
Afghan and Iraqi families know this is unfair, and America is not safer for having treated them this way.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Does that mean we shouldn't have nuns and monks or we shouldn't have an army or police? Its different questions whether we should have a military or whether we ourselves should join the military. There's a lot of ugly business in this world but we don't have to be a part of it.
People sleep peacefully in their beds each night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -George Orwell
Yes, I agree. What I'm saying is that just because rough men stand ready doesn't mean we all have to be rough men.
"People sleeping peacefully at night make rough men standing ready to do violence have meaning and value" -Me
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Let me try to put it another way. In the TV show The Walking Dead, there's a character Darrell. He's a tracker, survivalist, ruthless zombie killer and all around bad-ass. He's the kind of guy I'd definatly want on my side but I wouldn't want to actually be like him.
As a long time Buddhist I believe in being a pacifist but that doesn't mean I believe everyone has to be a pacifist.
Buddhism at its core is a personal psychological path and not neccessarily a social one. Though there is some precident for a social role and the principles can certainly be applied that way, its not really the main thrust.
To me, history is a long tale of violent, bad human beings generally behaving atrociously towards poor, uninterested bystanders. Frankly, "love, peace, and togetherness" is a good way to get you killed when you are confronted by stone-faced killers who wish to make you a slave and who want absolute power.
And, pray tell, how many stone-faced killers have you ever come face to face with? lol. I have faced several in my short time here on earth, so perhaps you should actually read what I wrote and stop acting as if you've encountered such things when you so clearly haven't.
What do you take away from the 20th century history, since you claim to be less selective in your knowledge than I? How would you stop genocide from happening to you or your neighbor? Just sing louder in church as you hear the screams?
I do not, nor have I ever, attended church, LOL. Also, I've studied far more than just the 20th century and anthropology, so perhaps you should take a look into that. I also would never say the Confederacy was 'evil' and the Union right....Nor would I look up to and idolize W.T. Sherman. But you seem to be selective in which of your sins are right and wrong, and so you are hypocritical to say that one party can do it and the other can't.
Do you know that far more people were murdered in brutal, awful ways in PEACETIME than in war in the 20th century? In China alone, this was the case! Not to mention the Soviet Union, the killing fields of Asia, Iraq, etc.
To answer your question, yes, I do think violence is an answer to some very serious problematic people. People who claim to be on a mission from God to "slay the unbelievers wherever you find them," who would exterminate whole races and religions, who would subjugate women to the level of cattle, would base YOUR life off of 7th century desert dictates...people who would create such misery for civilization deserve a good thrashing. So yes, I would like to see such people get their "come up-ins"
But obviously your mindset is SOOOOO different than theirs, huh?
Will I have nightmares and regrets? Impossible to say. The image of all soldiers coming home with flashbacks and guilt is nonsense.
I give up, you are just dead-set in your narrow-minded vantage, as I've already said, and you came here not to contribute and truly look at the morality, but to assert your opinion on others and discard anyone's (who have had REAL LIFE experience far beyond your own) that perhaps makes you seem a little...less than the 'Knight in shining armor' you like to view yourself as...
Bravo, continue on. I mean, really? If you're so sure in your beliefs, why did you post this topic in the first place? Obviously it is not for the reasons you have stated, or you wouldn't post the kind of responses you have.
I also wonder why the OP posted? It is like when someone asked why people used mac computers. And then didn't listen to what people said rather just pitched why pc was better.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Will I have nightmares and regrets? Impossible to say.
No, it's not, and yes, you will. I have recently watched a series on UKtv called "World War Two - The Last Heroes"
It was moving, harrowing, distressing and utterly naked in detail, and to a man, every single one of these aged fighters - from whichever country they were - were still deeply moved and affected by their experiences, so long ago. What's more, I used to live in Aldershot - a garrison town in Hampshire, UK. My neighbour was a medic, and I won't describe the experiences he had, or how they affected him, but there were thousands of soldiers receiving counselling and support for PTSD....
The image of all soldiers coming home with flashbacks and guilt is nonsense.
No. No, no, no no no - it really isn't. it's not just the flashbacks - it's the actual inability to even stop thinking about it all, at all.....
I have met, for better or worse, close associates who killed Taliban by the dozens and sleep very soundly at night after tucking their children in for bed.
Oh yeah, sure. So have I. But trust me on this one - there is still an effect, if they were able to see their enemies in the eye, while they butchered them.... However, if the combat was at a nice, safe distance, firing bullets and missiles, bombs and weaponry, capable of hitting targets a mile or more away - then that's a great form of detachment, a distancing yourself from the reality of seeing human bodies ripped apart. That's a far more "non-committal" way of destroying lives, isn't it?
Don't believe the "I blasted A-rabs and sleep just fine" fallacies. Almost none of them are true.
It's not just you who will suffer--you will not be able to have the same relationship with your wife and children you would have had if you had not taken the lives of other people's wives and children.
Do it if you're going to do it, but don't do it under the delusion that it will be a good thing.
Will I have nightmares and regrets? Impossible to say. The image of all soldiers coming home with flashbacks and guilt is nonsense.
And I would also just like to say that I am offended that you take such a trivial view of PTSD, from someone who suffers from it. It is a pretty severe mental illness that changes every aspect of your life, and it is SO much more than just having nightmares, and there is NO lasting treatment for those of us who suffer from it chronically.
But then again, you've trivialized almost everything else anyone has had to say, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. I don't wish ill on others, but I do wish you will have some kind of learning experience that will enable you to be a little more wise and compassionate towards others.
I also wonder why the OP posted? It is like when someone asked why people used mac computers. And then didn't listen to what people said rather just pitched why pc was better.
Knight is right in that not ALL soldiers return with PTSD. But PTSD is far from nonsense, and I hope you never have an opportunity to experience what it's like.
I'm glad Knight posted, and gave us a great discussion topic. When do you deploy, Knight? Let us know how things go once you get there, ok?
We have been through some interesting times together on this site and I know something of your defensiveness when you imagine you are under attack. You must have known that the consensus here would have been anti, and perhaps you wanted a good slanging match. You got one.
Whatever happens, do try to keep up a practice of focused attention and benevolent mind. And, as our sister Dakini says, do keep us posted. Some of us have held you in our thoughts and prayers over the years.
In the end war is simply killing. You would kill over shared memes; culture, race, beliefs and ideas. So will the other side. My wife's grandfather was a German soldier at Stalingrad. He died. Like you he fought for his family, his country, ideas and ideals. Is the only difference that he was on the losing team? Or is it that he fought for evil and just didn't realize it, his cause and his death for nothing? So murder is okay if you occupy the high moral ground, your death being honored and having meaning. There are people in the world that will cut my throat, murder my children; for them they would be met with extreme predjudice and violence from me. This I have no problem with. But your government is not your family and it's not even your country. It would be like saying that Hitler's government was Germany. It was just a government a very bad one at that, that made murderous decisions and then willingly sacrificed it's people for it's ideas. So the question is; is your government worth dying for? Will your government make sound, moral and honorable decisions when it comes to conducting war? Buddhists on the whole I believe are idealists.. It would be wonderful if there were no more wars. But that's not the case. We hold ideals yet live in a world that is banal, meanspirited, competitive and deadly. Sometimes we have to be mean, to use our animal brain to survive. Such is human existence.
nice post simon, there are so many signals going on in many threads that it is wise to take everything with a grain of salt. Most of us though we are passionate in our views also believe in fellowship of the website.
And I would also just like to say that I am offended that you take such a trivial view of PTSD, from someone who suffers from it. It is a pretty severe mental illness that changes every aspect of your life, and it is SO much more than just having nightmares, and there is NO lasting treatment for those of us who suffer from it chronically.
But then again, you've trivialized almost everything else anyone has had to say, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. I don't wish ill on others, but I do wish you will have some kind of learning experience that will enable you to be a little more wise and compassionate towards others.
Woah woah woah! I have NEVER trivialized PTSD. It's almost just as much a killer of troops as combat is. I was contending the popular notion in the media that somehow every soldier suffers from it or is tragically emotionally scarred by what he does. This is simply not the case. I have known hundreds of soldiers for many years who live normal lives after returning home from horrific experiences.
What else have I trivialized? It's a rather serious charge to make and I would care to see what examples are in this thread?
But obviously your mindset is SOOOOO different than theirs [Taliban], huh?
In so far as we both thing there are legitimate instances in which force should be used? Yes, and that's about where the agreement ends. If the Taliban had their way, women would be stoned for being raped, have no education, other religions would be subjugated or killed, and the state would be totalitarian. If Americans had their, the women would be free, religions would be respected, education would be provided, and there would be freedom of press and religion. Don't you think there's a bit of a qualitative difference?
You still did not answer my question about what should realistically be done about death cults like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda? If my proposals are so outlandish and horrific, pray tell what should actually be done?
As to the thing about Sherman, I addressed this in one of my first responses.
I give up, you are just dead-set in your narrow-minded vantage, as I've already said, and you came here not to contribute and truly look at the morality, but to assert your opinion on others and discard anyone's (who have had REAL LIFE experience far beyond your own) that perhaps makes you seem a little...less than the 'Knight in shining armor' you like to view yourself as...
Ok, now why do you have to question my motives and intentions? I have done nothing these past four years BUT look at the morality of it all, study wars current and past, and engage people in robust debate on the matter. I have not discarded anyone's life experience. What I have done is challenge the conclusions they've drawn about those real life experiences, never the experience itself.
Bravo, continue on. I mean, really? If you're so sure in your beliefs, why did you post this topic in the first place? Obviously it is not for the reasons you have stated, or you wouldn't post the kind of responses you have.
You see now, I was wondering when this was going to be said. I remember from years ago this being the case. I enjoy robust debate, and make no bones about having my own opinions. Anytime a topic would stir controversy, 95% of the participants would engage in it respectfully without slinging barbs or decrying the tone of anyone. But someone would as sure as the sun rises, complain about the purpose of the thread, the OP's intent and motives, and for being too opinionated or stuck in their beliefs. I posted about the topic because it is of deep interest and importance to me; the utility of force, what religion has to say about it, and what people who differ with me have to say about it. I didn't go into the service because I couldn't get a job or simply because of patriotism, but because I gradually came to the conclusion that it was a noble profession to be a part of.
@KnightofBuddha I'm done discussing anything else with you, this subject or any other, you have an answer for everything and retract your statements about as quickly as you make them. You have slung plenty during this discussion, but apparently retract it all now. I have no problems with someone having a differing opinion when they can back it up, but I cannot stand hypocrites. You can keep playing both sides of the coin with someone else, I'm done. One minute you are on this side, the next you're retracting and restating, on a whole different end of the spectrum.
I have given you answer after answer and you don't objectively read to any of it. As have many others. Good luck.
I admit I don't quite understand the hostility. I only directly engaged about your posts twice, and both times I addressed as much of what you wrote as I could. I wish you'd provide a few quoted examples of what bothers you, but none the less, I'll continue on the conversation with anyone who would like.
Thanks. I'll deploy either most likely in 2013, the later end I reckon. It depends where I get stationed stateside and when that unit will be heading to Afghanistan. My then wife will be in the Air Force, so it's tough to say where we'll both go.
I think we don't have to agree with an OP in order to enjoy a good discussion. And we can bear in mind that Knight is young, and is full of his own brand of youthful idealism. I think we can all agree, Knight included, that he's in for a lot of learning and growth experiences, which is why I'm keen to get reports from the front.
We did have one member posting early in the year that he had a commander in the army who was Buddhist. He said that was the best commander of all, because he took each decision very seriously, weighing consequences, and bringing his Buddhist morality to bear. That points out that a Buddhist in the armed forces isn't going to be a hot-head (like the guy who got us into Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place, that cowboy mentality). Remember the hot-heads in the Pentagon who were urging Kennedy to escalate the Cuban Missile Crisis? What if they'd prevailed? I'm really curious to see how the Knight experiment works out. I hope he and his (future) wife get through the experience relatively unscathed. Are you entering at any kind of officer level, Knight, or just as a rank-and-file private?
Comments
I don't know about the argument that there's a lower level of crime by military personnel than by civilians in the US. On the one hand, it seems that way. On the other hand, atrocities happen, as in Vietnam. But ok, barring atrocities, maybe you're right. But Knight struck me as such a moral kind of guy, it seemed natural to ask him to be the watchdog. He's so into Doing The Right Thing, you know? And that's not a bad thing, not at all, but if that's the role he wants, then why not take it all the way?
The problem is that the tools of modern war obliterate responsibility along with the victims.
There will not be any grand moment of decision-making, for a soldier. If you are told to fire, and you do not fire, you will receive a dishonorable discharge at best, or a court-martial at worst. When you sign that paper, you forfeit your legal right to selectively protect "women and children."
Seeing your enemy close up as you gut them with your gladius, seeing their life drain from their body with their one last dying breathe as they look you in the eyes - how could anyone do that? You'd see the humanity in them when you are up-close and personal with them.
When you shoot them from a quarter mile away, they aren't really humans. They are the enemy. Your target. Your objective. They aren't the dying man 2 feet away from you. You dehumanize them. You are the good guys, they are the bad guys.
Was it always this way? I just don't see how this could be... even though it probably was...
But Telly wasn't talking about a combat situation. He was following up on my comment, which was about how military personnel conduct themselves when they're off the base on their time off, among the local civilian population. Or even if they're off base but on the job, and an accident happens that gets covered up.
As for minimizing collateral damage, if your actions are to the point that it's a matter of killing one child rather than four or five, for example, that's one murder too many.
I'm ex-service; I don't say this lightly. I know full well that even though I didn't carry a gun, I loaded planes which could have killed civilians. War is murder by another name. If you don't want to murder innocents, you have no business participating. It's easy to see in hindsight, but the young go into it eagerly only to come out wrecked. I know I'm being kind of harsh with the language, but that's because there's no turning back. Once you're in-country, the odds of your backing out are practically nil.
So if you don't want to kill people, get out now; once in-country, especially tank/infantry/close air support, you will kill women and kids. This is the tragic reality of the Middle East theater; there's no point in mincing words.
Troops are pretty good about looking out for each other... Its the whole chain of coomand thing where a NCO is also held responsible for their troops, on up tne chain... Yet there are still unfortunate ugly stories. People are people regardless of how you speak, dress, vote or earn a paycheck.
Namaste
Anyway, things are changing (as they always do). It will not be long before the west is not in such a powerful situation as it is now. I still agree with what federica said, America does seem to have a gun-h attitude on the whole. It is a very unique place because it is no more than 350 years old (as known as the USA), but has come so far so quickly. IMO, it is kind of half deveolped and helf not.
In the 'real' world we often have to make tough choices that cause pain and suffering to some. This is a Buddhist discussion though and there's a long tradition of buddhists leaving the 'real' world in order to live a more ethical life. As lay practicioners we do have to make ethically complicated choices but we shouldn't pretend that there's no dark side just because it seems a neccessity.
The wars in the Middle East are not those wars.
I believe strongly that we are creating enemies where there were none; we are dooming our children and grandchildren to perpetual "actions" in the Middle East which have no beginning and no end - a 100 year Vietnam, with no tangible benefit to America.
Do not make the mistake of confusing shooting with strategy.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v11/v11p431_Lutton.html
And just as many sacrifices were made by boys from every country participating.
Soldiers have mutual respect. When you die by stepping on a bomb, you die the same way any other 'boy' does. A bomb doesn't care who it kills. But no soldier wants to see any ally die.
Franklin D Roosevelt stitched his country up.
However, to suggest that you should not respect your country's WWII vets is very widely off the mark. But they should have no more - or less - respect than any other country's vets.
I'm glad you clarified for me that you don't feel that we shouldn't respect our vets... that's all I was asking for. Thanks
I strongly disagree with the principle of conflict, war and killing. The thought of what these young men have to face, turns my stomach.
A very good friend of mine, called Arthur Palmer, who has unfortunately now died, was a USAF vet who chased the Germans back towards the French/German border, once they knew they has been defeated.
I was deeply privileged to play an active role in his quest for accurate details of his past, and putting the pieces of the last weeks of his active service together, after he had been shot down, in France. It was a journey of discovery which was at times, overwhelmingly moving.
His children saw him with new eyes, they knew nothing of all of this....
He had only told his children that he joined the Air Force, because he knew he didn't have the stomach to watch a man die in face-to-face combat.
I personally feel many modern young soldiers probably feel the same way. I further suspect that when they are faced with the reality of blood, gore, guts, death and the loss of friends and comrades - the reality check is terrifying, and that many are in fact, frightened and must wish they could be anywhere else, but there....I don't believe any amount of training can ever prepare you for that.
I've read plenty of history alright, and have just obviously come to a vastly different conclusion than your own. To me, history is a long tale of violent, bad human beings generally behaving atrociously towards poor, uninterested bystanders. Frankly, "love, peace, and togetherness" is a good way to get you killed when you are confronted by stone-faced killers who wish to make you a slave and who want absolute power.
What do you take away from the 20th century history, since you claim to be less selective in your knowledge than I? How would you stop genocide from happening to you or your neighbor? Just sing louder in church as you hear the screams? Do you know that far more people were murdered in brutal, awful ways in PEACETIME than in war in the 20th century? In China alone, this was the case! Not to mention the Soviet Union, the killing fields of Asia, Iraq, etc.
To answer your question, yes, I do think violence is an answer to some very serious problematic people. People who claim to be on a mission from God to "slay the unbelievers wherever you find them," who would exterminate whole races and religions, who would subjugate women to the level of cattle, would base YOUR life off of 7th century desert dictates...people who would create such misery for civilization deserve a good thrashing. So yes, I would like to see such people get their "come up-ins"
Will I have nightmares and regrets? Impossible to say. The image of all soldiers coming home with flashbacks and guilt is nonsense. I have met, for better or worse, close associates who killed Taliban by the dozens and sleep very soundly at night after tucking their children in for bed.
Neither would I opt to do it.
MY choice.
Thank You
With all due respect, standing ready and engaging in bad military strategy are two different things.
A lot of young drug dealers down my street are ready to do violence, too; it isn't the willingness to be violent which determines whether a war is justified or not.
I sleep less peacefully in my bed each night because bad strategy has started a war where none existed.
Iraq did not fund 9/11; other Middle East parties did. But since we are not willing to take on the actual parties, we bomb houses in Iraq and Afghanistan instead.
Afghan and Iraqi families know this is unfair, and America is not safer for having treated them this way.
"People sleeping peacefully at night make rough men standing ready to do violence have meaning and value" -Me
I offer General Patton's thoughts for your consideration, his poem:
Through A Glass Darkly
http://www.goddesschess.com/literaryagora/throughaglassdarkly.html
As a long time Buddhist I believe in being a pacifist but that doesn't mean I believe everyone has to be a pacifist.
Buddhism at its core is a personal psychological path and not neccessarily a social one. Though there is some precident for a social role and the principles can certainly be applied that way, its not really the main thrust.
Also, I've studied far more than just the 20th century and anthropology, so perhaps you should take a look into that. I also would never say the Confederacy was 'evil' and the Union right....Nor would I look up to and idolize W.T. Sherman. But you seem to be selective in which of your sins are right and wrong, and so you are hypocritical to say that one party can do it and the other can't. But obviously your mindset is SOOOOO different than theirs, huh? I give up, you are just dead-set in your narrow-minded vantage, as I've already said, and you came here not to contribute and truly look at the morality, but to assert your opinion on others and discard anyone's (who have had REAL LIFE experience far beyond your own) that perhaps makes you seem a little...less than the 'Knight in shining armor' you like to view yourself as...
Bravo, continue on. I mean, really? If you're so sure in your beliefs, why did you post this topic in the first place? Obviously it is not for the reasons you have stated, or you wouldn't post the kind of responses you have.
I have recently watched a series on UKtv called "World War Two - The Last Heroes"
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/world-war-ii-the-last-heroes/4od
It was moving, harrowing, distressing and utterly naked in detail, and to a man, every single one of these aged fighters - from whichever country they were - were still deeply moved and affected by their experiences, so long ago.
What's more, I used to live in Aldershot - a garrison town in Hampshire, UK. My neighbour was a medic, and I won't describe the experiences he had, or how they affected him, but there were thousands of soldiers receiving counselling and support for PTSD.... No.
No, no, no no no - it really isn't.
it's not just the flashbacks - it's the actual inability to even stop thinking about it all, at all..... Oh yeah, sure. So have I.
But trust me on this one - there is still an effect, if they were able to see their enemies in the eye, while they butchered them....
However, if the combat was at a nice, safe distance, firing bullets and missiles, bombs and weaponry, capable of hitting targets a mile or more away - then that's a great form of detachment, a distancing yourself from the reality of seeing human bodies ripped apart.
That's a far more "non-committal" way of destroying lives, isn't it?
It's not just you who will suffer--you will not be able to have the same relationship with your wife and children you would have had if you had not taken the lives of other people's wives and children.
Do it if you're going to do it, but don't do it under the delusion that it will be a good thing.
But then again, you've trivialized almost everything else anyone has had to say, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. I don't wish ill on others, but I do wish you will have some kind of learning experience that will enable you to be a little more wise and compassionate towards others. On the nose Jeffrey.
I'm glad Knight posted, and gave us a great discussion topic. When do you deploy, Knight? Let us know how things go once you get there, ok?
We have been through some interesting times together on this site and I know something of your defensiveness when you imagine you are under attack. You must have known that the consensus here would have been anti, and perhaps you wanted a good slanging match. You got one.
Whatever happens, do try to keep up a practice of focused attention and benevolent mind. And, as our sister Dakini says, do keep us posted. Some of us have held you in our thoughts and prayers over the years.
You would kill over shared memes; culture, race, beliefs and ideas.
So will the other side.
My wife's grandfather was a German soldier at Stalingrad. He died.
Like you he fought for his family, his country, ideas and ideals.
Is the only difference that he was on the losing team?
Or is it that he fought for evil and just didn't realize it, his cause and his death for nothing?
So murder is okay if you occupy the high moral ground, your death being honored and having meaning.
There are people in the world that will cut my throat, murder my children; for them they would be met with extreme predjudice and violence from me.
This I have no problem with. But your government is not your family and it's not even your country.
It would be like saying that Hitler's government was Germany. It was just a government a very bad one at that, that made murderous decisions and then willingly sacrificed it's people for it's ideas.
So the question is; is your government worth dying for?
Will your government make sound, moral and honorable decisions when it comes to conducting war?
Buddhists on the whole I believe are idealists..
It would be wonderful if there were no more wars.
But that's not the case. We hold ideals yet live in a world that is banal, meanspirited, competitive and deadly.
Sometimes we have to be mean, to use our animal brain to survive.
Such is human existence.
What else have I trivialized? It's a rather serious charge to make and I would care to see what examples are in this thread? In so far as we both thing there are legitimate instances in which force should be used? Yes, and that's about where the agreement ends. If the Taliban had their way, women would be stoned for being raped, have no education, other religions would be subjugated or killed, and the state would be totalitarian. If Americans had their, the women would be free, religions would be respected, education would be provided, and there would be freedom of press and religion. Don't you think there's a bit of a qualitative difference?
You still did not answer my question about what should realistically be done about death cults like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda? If my proposals are so outlandish and horrific, pray tell what should actually be done?
As to the thing about Sherman, I addressed this in one of my first responses. Ok, now why do you have to question my motives and intentions? I have done nothing these past four years BUT look at the morality of it all, study wars current and past, and engage people in robust debate on the matter. I have not discarded anyone's life experience. What I have done is challenge the conclusions they've drawn about those real life experiences, never the experience itself. You see now, I was wondering when this was going to be said. I remember from years ago this being the case. I enjoy robust debate, and make no bones about having my own opinions. Anytime a topic would stir controversy, 95% of the participants would engage in it respectfully without slinging barbs or decrying the tone of anyone. But someone would as sure as the sun rises, complain about the purpose of the thread, the OP's intent and motives, and for being too opinionated or stuck in their beliefs. I posted about the topic because it is of deep interest and importance to me; the utility of force, what religion has to say about it, and what people who differ with me have to say about it. I didn't go into the service because I couldn't get a job or simply because of patriotism, but because I gradually came to the conclusion that it was a noble profession to be a part of.
I have given you answer after answer and you don't objectively read to any of it. As have many others.
Good luck.
I admit I don't quite understand the hostility. I only directly engaged about your posts twice, and both times I addressed as much of what you wrote as I could. I wish you'd provide a few quoted examples of what bothers you, but none the less, I'll continue on the conversation with anyone who would like.
@Dakini
Thanks. I'll deploy either most likely in 2013, the later end I reckon. It depends where I get stationed stateside and when that unit will be heading to Afghanistan. My then wife will be in the Air Force, so it's tough to say where we'll both go.
We did have one member posting early in the year that he had a commander in the army who was Buddhist. He said that was the best commander of all, because he took each decision very seriously, weighing consequences, and bringing his Buddhist morality to bear. That points out that a Buddhist in the armed forces isn't going to be a hot-head (like the guy who got us into Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place, that cowboy mentality). Remember the hot-heads in the Pentagon who were urging Kennedy to escalate the Cuban Missile Crisis? What if they'd prevailed? I'm really curious to see how the Knight experiment works out. I hope he and his (future) wife get through the experience relatively unscathed. Are you entering at any kind of officer level, Knight, or just as a rank-and-file private?