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.
@Theswingisyellow I see your point, and to a degree I understand. But as always, it's not a black and white area. .If it was, it would be easier to come to a solution that made sense. What about when countries like Iran arrest our citizens with no cause? I am not saying we should go to full scale war to get a couple citizens back and in the process kill thousands of innocent people. But intervention is needed sometimes in those situations and who is going to do it if we have no military?
@MaryAnne again, overall I tend to agree. But what do you do when leaders of countries are committing atrocious crimes against their own citizens? If the citizens cannot protect themselves, cannot stand up for themselves, who is going to do it for them? I'm not in any way justifying every action we have taken in other countries. I disagree quite a lot about which thins we choose to stick our noses in (usually things in which we have an economic interest) and stay out of while we sit back and watch thousands or millions of people suffer and die. When is helping people in those situations ok? I ask because I'm still trying to figure it out myself. Should we be fighting against some of these people because it's the right thing to do? Or leave them to fight their own battles even if they cannot?
Swing, when our police force protects us with violence, something inside an officer may die(think of the Rodney King incident).Perhaps the same can be said for our soldiers. It is not sweet to die for ones country,or even to fight for it. It helps to dehumanize the enemy if you are the one who must kill them . It is all a pile of shit. But until innocence can live without fear soldiers are essential to the equation. Police are essential to this same equation. Security guards at the market and the sports stadium are essential. When you walk the streets in safety you benefit from this implied violence. That these protectors can become machines , that they distance themselves from these acts.... I cannot blame them. President Obama likes his drones . Maybe he does so he can distance himself further. I cannot blame him. I want to distance myself too, but until we do not need protection , I will not. I am those soldiers , I am the policeman. I am sorry for the killing ,I do not want it to happen. I am the killer because I benefit from the security they provide. Is it ugly? Is it sad? Is it too terrible to view? I am sorry and I see no other way to go about this. I will not say I am a pacifist until innocent people need not fear for their lives. I can not live like that. I respect your passion.
'They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, and call it peace.' (Tacitus)
The problem with war is that soldiers are not the ones who start it. Politicians do, or other powerful figures who wield influence. Then its up to the politicians to sell the war to everyone else in the name of 'defence,' democracy,' 'peace,' 'capitalism,' or whatever other -ism one is pushing. Wars are (almost?) always the result of causes and conditions that long precede a that war's beginning, bringing things to a head where violence is the natural next step.
When the US helps to get rid of political leaders of other countries because it does not suit their economic advantage, or engage in proxy wars, is it any wonder that so many people have hatred for the US? The US has helped to cultivate those seeds of hatred for decades. And this is true of all countries who have ever engaged in such policies. And when finally that hatred erupts in an act of terrorism or war, how can we shake our heads wondering what has happened?
People will only take so much exploitation before revolting violently--and sometimes those people can be easily led by someone else who doesn't really have their interests at stake either. This only makes the situation even worse, pushing the cycle of violence further. We never noticed the exploitation which we all were benefiting from until some people said they finally weren't going to take it anymore.
This is not to absolve the horrible doings of terrorists. But the US and other powerful countries have helped to perpetuate the cycle of hatred and violence in many ways-- and it is unnecessary. It doesn't take much to scratch under the surface to see that underneath all the rhetoric of patriotism and 'defence' that the ugly roots of the problem. Most people would rather not see that, because then we are all implicated in that violence. And the truth is, we all are.
'To some men peace merely means the liberty to exploit other people without fear of retaliation or interference. To others peace means the freedom to rob others without interruption. To still others it means the leisure to devour the goods of the earth without being compelled to interrupt their pleasures to feed upon those whom their greed is starving. And to practically everybody peace simply means the absence of any physical violence that might cast a shadow over lives devoted to the satisfaction of their animal appetites for comfort and pleasure.' (Thomas Merton)
@sndymorn-Nice post thank you. I am not against defense. If you come into my home to harm me or my family, you will have a very difficut time as I considerate it a right and duty to protect myself and those I hold dear. What I can't stand is industrial killing in prepetual wars whose reason and foundation rest on very shaky ethical and moral grounds. We are cleary the aggressor. If this was Star Wars, we are definitely not Luke Skywalker. I look at at the so-called wars we are engaged in and ask, would I want my children to make the ultimate sacrifice for our endeavors there? No. All we are doing is establishing our military presence and controlling resources, as we have always done. Hell, I think this is just the logical conclusion of our history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States Wars are comitted for those in power, the poor boys and girls sent to participate in the worst that humanity can offer are simply pawns in their game. When we don't reason or ask what we are doing, when we set the bar so low for our reasoning for war, when we hide war and we act like it's a glorious and time honored thing, when call innocent dead "collateral damage" and use slogans like "support the troops" (basically this is just blatant propaganda, because if I support the the troops, I then support any type of action, immoral, illegal or otherwise we might be engaged in. This also has the effect of negating any type of serious discussion of our policies) we perpetuate the myth. We pass that on to others, so that their generation may also share in the glory of war.
Once a division of the Japanese army was engaged in a sham battle, and some of the officers found it necessary to make their headquarters in Gasan's temple.
Gasan told his cook: "Let the officers have only the same simple fare we eat."
This made the army men angry, as they wre used to very deferential treatment. One came to Gasan and said: "Who do you think we are? We are soldiers, sacrificing our lives for our country. Why don't you treat us accordingly?"
Gasan answered sternly: "Who do you think we are? We are soldiers of humanity, aiming to save all sentient beings."
So everyone is fighting to be the next Donald Trump. the sad reality is the other 99% will pay the price so that people like Trump can zip around in his chopper and go to scotland, rip out the pristine countryside and build ' the hugest , bestest golf course in the world'.
Funny. Soldiers defend freedom-by-war. Non-soldiers do not.
Non-soldiers definitely do defend freedom by war. Ever hear of the French Resistance? And many other countries have had them too.
Or is this some Zen thing I don't get?
You know, we don't live in Utopia and until we do, we will have a need for a military. Hopefully that military is controlled by a democratically elected government though.
Hmmm the wonderfull world of democraty. Bilion dollar porn industry. Billion dollar gun industry. Billion dollar prescription drug industry. Ufc-cage-fighting as the new national sport. Everybody living on credit. Working some crappy job being treated like a part of a statistical output programme. Crappy job gone, credit-company kicks in, house/car/life gone. Crazy people shooting up little kids. No money, no health(care). Burn-outs, depression, obese people dying of MacDonalds food.
Represantatives of that world building an army to protect??? Protect what? Against some 'other' world that is somehow worse? Please explain cause i do not understand. Serieusly.
Seems to be getting a little out of control here lol. I think first it started out fine but now it's more about what someone believes war is about, or who benefits from war and who doesn't, and then talking about how evil the US is to send people to war, etc. I can see where this conversation is going to keep going, and I don't think it's a good place.
So we lost all those people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then we find that the London 7/7 bombers in London grew up in England, probably radicalised as a result of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. As far as I can see punching above our weight is a very bad idea.
Seems to be getting a little out of control here lol. I think first it started out fine but now it's more about what someone believes war is about, or who benefits from war and who doesn't, and then talking about how evil the US is to send people to war, etc. I can see where this conversation is going to keep going, and I don't think it's a good place.
No offense intended but I hardly think an exchange of ideas is "getting a little out of control here" People have opinions and people will disagree, as long as we are civil I don't see why well intentioned thinking adults can't have a conversation. All the best, Todd
"@MaryAnne .... But what do you do when leaders of countries are committing atrocious crimes against their own citizens? If the citizens cannot protect themselves, cannot stand up for themselves, who is going to do it for them? I'm not in any way justifying every action we have taken in other countries. I disagree quite a lot about which thins we choose to stick our noses in (usually things in which we have an economic interest) and stay out of while we sit back and watch thousands or millions of people suffer and die. When is helping people in those situations ok? I ask because I'm still trying to figure it out myself. Should we be fighting against some of these people because it's the right thing to do? Or leave them to fight their own battles even if they cannot? "
Yes, we are pretty much on the same page here. I ask myself all those same questions, and like you, still can't figure out the 'right' answer.... nor the 'right' procedure for getting to the place where we can apply the "right action" to protect those who can't protect themselves....
Like I said, my vision would be to have a cohesive military used for defense purposes only. How to we GET to that point? Good gods, I have no clue... I guess the very first teeny tiny baby step would be to begin to change our society's view of war and what makes it justified elsewhere, one mind at a time. I really do believe many of us are making that mindset change.
When it comes to freeing other people from oppressive and genocidal governments and leaders in other countries? There should be, no, there must be a global agreement for a course of action and equal participation in carrying out that course of action. Other than that, I've got no real answers.....
Yeah I'm not sure either. It's hard to even know if we can trust the reasons we are told when we go to war. Like when we went to war with Iraq looking for WMDs and never found them. But was taking down Saddam a bad thing? I don't know, because all I have to go by is news reports that I see, I don't know if the people there are truly better off or if we left them with a destroyed country.
Since it is the topic of the day, it's unnerving to watch North Korea threaten us with nukes. I know it's probably mostly bluster, but they clearly have at least some means to do so. Another situation where it seems a lot of the citizens live in squalor while the government sits pretty and we don't do anything but sanctions which in return likely only hurt the citizens anyhow, who the government doesn't give 2 shits about anyhow. But, again, that is my western understanding which is probably flawed. What do I think we should do? I don't know. It just seems like we should be able to do something with the crack pots who threaten the safety of the entire planet with their crazy antics.
The real question is why the US supported Saddam in the 1980s to begin with. This is what is wrong with the 'enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend' policy. The same goes for the Taliban who originally gained financial support from the US also. And Pinochet in Chile. Etc., etc.
Many of these so-called enemies were once 'friends' and it isn't like the US government just didn't know any better. They knew who they were dealing with. The US has not had any problems supporting brutal dictators, as long as they weren't communist or socialist. These are problems we helped to create. And we're still doing it.
@karasti-"But was taking down Saddam a bad thing?" 60 billion dollars later the country is still in turmoil, hundreds of thousands civilians dead, and the removal of the only brake in the region on Iranian power.
"It just seems like we should be able to do something with the crack pots who threaten the safety of the entire planet with their crazy antics."-Are you talking about the U.S.?
Like what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin (that lie) that led to 10 years of war in Vietnam-50,000 Americans dead and just as many suicides later and untold Vietnamese dead. The exercise of our power is raw and undistilled and it's not done as some sort of benovolence. We know what we do, we know who we back and the end justifies the means. There is no hindsight about it.
The Gulf Of Tonkin wasn't a reason for the Vietnam War, it was an excuse for the Vietnam War. The reason for the war was the international power chess game of that era.
How many here know the real story about the US' 50+ yr hatred and vilification of Cuba /Castro?
We were fine with Castro when he was an up and coming rebel against the then current government of Cuba and supported him fully ... But as soon as he took over and then wouldn't kowtow to US demands and intrusions into every aspect of Cuba's economic and political foundation, he became 'The Communist Enemy" in cahoots with Russia. Well, there was a reason Cuba was forced into cahoots with Russia.... namely the USA.
One example of many where American citizens are either too stupid or too apathetic to look beyond the propaganda we're fed continuously in order to investigate (and discover) the reality of things.
Can we ever truly know the reality or the truth of something we didn't experience first hand? We sure can do a better job investigating and using better sources than our cable news channels to get information to better form our opinions, definitely. And there are absolutely some things that people hold as fact from history that we know now was never fact. I do agree that most people don't want to, for whatever reason, investigate things in that way. But even when we do, what % of what we think we know, is actually the truth?
Also, I blame schooling for teaching horrible versions of American history
Patna, India -- The British Army will send about 4,000 of its troops, who are followers of Buddhism, in a group of 100-150 people to spend a week at Bodh Gaya and Sarnath to seek peace after their prolonged involvement in the war zones in different countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq. They will all meditate under the famous tree at Bodh Gaya, where Lord Buddha had attained enlightenment in 6th century B.C.
Mahabodhi tree has been declared a world heritage site by the Unesco in 2002.
"The British soldiers will start arriving in Bodh Gaya from early next year," Bihar's minister for tourism Sunil Kumar Pintu told Mail Today on Monday. "They will arrive in separate groups of about 100-150 people and meditate under the holy tree. They will continue to arrive here throughout the next year."
I don't believe it to be honest. There's not 4000 Buddhists in the British army; no way; probably no more than a few hundred (probably); and there's no way the British army would send people over to meditate; they're too busy doing army type stuff.
Heh. The fact that every few months or so someone new to the board asks the question, and it's usually someone facing the choice of military and following a Buddhist path, means it's important to repost our thoughts on the subject. This is not some hypothetical or philosophical pondering to them; it's a real-world conflict that might effect their entire life. I think what's really important is that the person asking the question reads the variety of answers.
There are many Buddhist pacifists out there and some on this board who see all war as evil, armies as tools of conquest and killing, and of course from that viewpoint the answer can only be no, a military uniform and Buddhism cannot mix. Who am I to say they are wrong? What do I do, argue that killing and bombing is correct action? There is a larger question of "Is war ever justified?" that has never been settled since humanity started drawing up boundary lines and saying this land belongs to my tribe.
But for some of us (and fair notice, I'm one of them) the world and issue isn't that simple. There are Buddhist nations that have armies, after all. Tibet had an army and a police force that was brutal by most accounts before it was taken over by the Chinese, for instance. More than that, some truly evil people have and will use their armies to inflict genocide on peaceful neighbors even today. They would love for the world to refuse to fight back. They would fill mass graves with the bodies of pacifists.
So for me, the question calls for a discussion of the circumstances. What army, what nation, what job are you talking about? For me, it's not a matter of a uniform or oath. Someone in the military can be living a Buddhist life, while the leader of a temple can be destroying lives, in spite of uniforms and oaths.
The point is not the veracity of any particular story. Buddhist Military Sangha were presumably repeating the story from the Daily Mail.. The key point is that there are clearly military people who self identify as Buddhist and who I think deserve support rather than being made to feel like pariahs.
I am a young male who's in the middle of his basic Royal Navy training, joining as a engineer, does this conflict with buddhist ideals? Because this isn't a way of life I want to give up. Thanks in advance
If there is going to be a 'warless' world, then no human race should be in the military. But since there is the military and you are already in it, make sure you are on the right side, serving to keep evil in check.
Comments
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21926670/The-First-Earth-Battalion-Field-Manual
It is featured in, 'The men who stare at goats'.
In the future it will be required reading for all services. :wave:
@MaryAnne again, overall I tend to agree. But what do you do when leaders of countries are committing atrocious crimes against their own citizens? If the citizens cannot protect themselves, cannot stand up for themselves, who is going to do it for them? I'm not in any way justifying every action we have taken in other countries. I disagree quite a lot about which thins we choose to stick our noses in (usually things in which we have an economic interest) and stay out of while we sit back and watch thousands or millions of people suffer and die. When is helping people in those situations ok? I ask because I'm still trying to figure it out myself. Should we be fighting against some of these people because it's the right thing to do? Or leave them to fight their own battles even if they cannot?
But until innocence can live without fear soldiers are essential to the equation. Police are essential to this same equation. Security guards at the market and the sports stadium are essential. When you walk the streets in safety you benefit from this implied violence.
That these protectors can become machines , that they distance themselves from these acts.... I cannot blame them. President Obama likes his drones . Maybe he does so he can distance himself further. I cannot blame him.
I want to distance myself too, but until we do not need protection , I will not. I am those soldiers , I am the policeman. I am sorry for the killing ,I do not want it to happen. I am the killer because I benefit from the security they provide.
Is it ugly? Is it sad? Is it too terrible to view?
I am sorry and I see no other way to go about this. I will not say I am a pacifist until innocent people need not fear for their lives. I can not live like that.
I respect your passion.
The problem with war is that soldiers are not the ones who start it. Politicians do, or other powerful figures who wield influence. Then its up to the politicians to sell the war to everyone else in the name of 'defence,' democracy,' 'peace,' 'capitalism,' or whatever other -ism one is pushing. Wars are (almost?) always the result of causes and conditions that long precede a that war's beginning, bringing things to a head where violence is the natural next step.
When the US helps to get rid of political leaders of other countries because it does not suit their economic advantage, or engage in proxy wars, is it any wonder that so many people have hatred for the US? The US has helped to cultivate those seeds of hatred for decades. And this is true of all countries who have ever engaged in such policies. And when finally that hatred erupts in an act of terrorism or war, how can we shake our heads wondering what has happened?
People will only take so much exploitation before revolting violently--and sometimes those people can be easily led by someone else who doesn't really have their interests at stake either. This only makes the situation even worse, pushing the cycle of violence further. We never noticed the exploitation which we all were benefiting from until some people said they finally weren't going to take it anymore.
This is not to absolve the horrible doings of terrorists. But the US and other powerful countries have helped to perpetuate the cycle of hatred and violence in many ways-- and it is unnecessary. It doesn't take much to scratch under the surface to see that underneath all the rhetoric of patriotism and 'defence' that the ugly roots of the problem. Most people would rather not see that, because then we are all implicated in that violence. And the truth is, we all are.
'To some men peace merely means the liberty to exploit other people without fear of retaliation or interference. To others peace means the freedom to rob others without interruption. To still others it means the leisure to devour the goods of the earth without being compelled to interrupt their pleasures to feed upon those whom their greed is starving. And to practically everybody peace simply means the absence of any physical violence that might cast a shadow over lives devoted to the satisfaction of their animal appetites for comfort and pleasure.' (Thomas Merton)
Wars are comitted for those in power, the poor boys and girls sent to participate in the worst that humanity can offer are simply pawns in their game. When we don't reason or ask what we are doing, when we set the bar so low for our reasoning for war, when we hide war and we act like it's a glorious and time honored thing, when call innocent dead "collateral damage" and use slogans like "support the troops" (basically this is just blatant propaganda, because if I support the the troops, I then support any type of action, immoral, illegal or otherwise we might be engaged in. This also has the effect of negating any type of serious discussion of our policies) we perpetuate the myth. We pass that on to others, so that their generation may also share in the glory of war.
Once a division of the Japanese army was engaged in a sham battle, and some of the officers found it necessary to make their headquarters in Gasan's temple.
Gasan told his cook: "Let the officers have only the same simple fare we eat."
This made the army men angry, as they wre used to very deferential treatment. One came to Gasan and said: "Who do you think we are? We are soldiers, sacrificing our lives for our country. Why don't you treat us accordingly?"
Gasan answered sternly: "Who do you think we are? We are soldiers of humanity, aiming to save all sentient beings."
the sad reality is the other 99% will pay the price
so that people like Trump can zip around in his
chopper and go to scotland, rip out the pristine countryside
and build ' the hugest , bestest golf course in the world'.
Am I fired???
People have opinions and people will disagree, as long as we are civil I don't see why well intentioned thinking adults can't have a conversation.
All the best,
Todd
"@MaryAnne .... But what do you do when leaders of countries are committing atrocious crimes against their own citizens?
If the citizens cannot protect themselves, cannot stand up for themselves, who is going to do it for them? I'm not in any way justifying every action we have taken in other countries. I disagree quite a lot about which thins we choose to stick our noses in (usually things in which we have an economic interest) and stay out of while we sit back and watch thousands or millions of people suffer and die.
When is helping people in those situations ok?
I ask because I'm still trying to figure it out myself. Should we be fighting against some of these people because it's the right thing to do? Or leave them to fight their own battles even if they cannot? "
Yes, we are pretty much on the same page here. I ask myself all those same questions, and like you, still can't figure out the 'right' answer.... nor the 'right' procedure for getting to the place where we can apply the "right action" to protect those who can't protect themselves....
Like I said, my vision would be to have a cohesive military used for defense purposes only. How to we GET to that point? Good gods, I have no clue... I guess the very first teeny tiny baby step would be to begin to change our society's view of war and what makes it justified elsewhere, one mind at a time.
I really do believe many of us are making that mindset change.
When it comes to freeing other people from oppressive and genocidal governments and leaders in other countries? There should be, no, there must be a global agreement for a course of action and equal participation in carrying out that course of action.
Other than that, I've got no real answers.....
Since it is the topic of the day, it's unnerving to watch North Korea threaten us with nukes. I know it's probably mostly bluster, but they clearly have at least some means to do so. Another situation where it seems a lot of the citizens live in squalor while the government sits pretty and we don't do anything but sanctions which in return likely only hurt the citizens anyhow, who the government doesn't give 2 shits about anyhow. But, again, that is my western understanding which is probably flawed. What do I think we should do? I don't know. It just seems like we should be able to do something with the crack pots who threaten the safety of the entire planet with their crazy antics.
Many of these so-called enemies were once 'friends' and it isn't like the US government just didn't know any better. They knew who they were dealing with. The US has not had any problems supporting brutal dictators, as long as they weren't communist or socialist. These are problems we helped to create. And we're still doing it.
60 billion dollars later the country is still in turmoil, hundreds of thousands civilians dead, and the removal of the only brake in the region on Iranian power.
"It just seems like we should be able to do something with the crack pots who threaten the safety of the entire planet with their crazy antics."-Are you talking about the U.S.?
Although I did have to laugh...as far as I know the Gulf Of Tonkin did occur...I think it's still there.
We were fine with Castro when he was an up and coming rebel against the then current government of Cuba and supported him fully ...
But as soon as he took over and then wouldn't kowtow to US demands and intrusions into every aspect of Cuba's economic and political foundation, he became 'The Communist Enemy" in cahoots with Russia. Well, there was a reason Cuba was forced into cahoots with Russia.... namely the USA.
One example of many where American citizens are either too stupid or too apathetic to look beyond the propaganda we're fed continuously in order to investigate (and discover) the reality of things.
Also, I blame schooling for teaching horrible versions of American history
Just in case anyone might be interested in what it is actually like to be a Buddhist in the military.
Rather than mere papanca.
I just clicked on this link to that buddhist military blog spot and saw this:
http://buddhistmilitarysangha.blogspot.co.uk/ I don't believe it to be honest. There's not 4000 Buddhists in the British army; no way; probably no more than a few hundred (probably); and there's no way the British army would send people over to meditate; they're too busy doing army type stuff.
It's ridiculous.
------------------------------------------
Actually, I just googled and found this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2246069/British-Army-send-4-000-Buddhist-troops-India-meditation-combat-post-traumatic-stress.html
I think it's true. Will report back later after some digging.
http://shambhalasun.com/sunspace/?p=30392
There are many Buddhist pacifists out there and some on this board who see all war as evil, armies as tools of conquest and killing, and of course from that viewpoint the answer can only be no, a military uniform and Buddhism cannot mix. Who am I to say they are wrong? What do I do, argue that killing and bombing is correct action? There is a larger question of "Is war ever justified?" that has never been settled since humanity started drawing up boundary lines and saying this land belongs to my tribe.
But for some of us (and fair notice, I'm one of them) the world and issue isn't that simple. There are Buddhist nations that have armies, after all. Tibet had an army and a police force that was brutal by most accounts before it was taken over by the Chinese, for instance. More than that, some truly evil people have and will use their armies to inflict genocide on peaceful neighbors even today. They would love for the world to refuse to fight back. They would fill mass graves with the bodies of pacifists.
So for me, the question calls for a discussion of the circumstances. What army, what nation, what job are you talking about? For me, it's not a matter of a uniform or oath. Someone in the military can be living a Buddhist life, while the leader of a temple can be destroying lives, in spite of uniforms and oaths.
The key point is that there are clearly military people who self identify as Buddhist and who I think deserve support rather than being made to feel like pariahs.