Reply
Tue 29 Apr, 2003 03:10 pm
Quote:...the military in the US (excluding draftees) would seem to made up largely of those for whom there was little or no alternative. Before you reject that thought, give it some time. Look at our culture. Look at how we embrace the Idea of military but treat them like the disenfranchised in illness, disability and retirement. Has anyone done a study of the military in American life -- quite apart from the huge, huge bucks made off of them at the top end of the profession?
...I don't think it's about white male bellicosity within the military, but that power group makes use of the military, makes money off it. Like motorcycles and John Wayne and other male cultural symbols, the military is, for many men, a penile implant in otherwise uncertain, drifting lives.
Taken from
RESEARCHING HOWARD DEAN, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
Well, serving in the military is one of the ways to manifest one's masculinity. Males are inborn warriors and hunters, what is wrong with this?
Steissd -- When we urbanized -- so that it became less necessary to fight and kill for territory and food -- the warrior-hunter also became unnecessary. In such societies, war became a stylized way of expressing these no longer necessary traits. So we've gotten to a point where the ability to develop sophisticated weapons and train men for their use creates the "necessity" for new territory to conquer, rather than the reverse. Psychologists and others have joined with the military and other experts (these meetings used to take place at the War College -- I don't know whether they continue) to discuss "alternatives to war." Of course the best substitute is no substitute -- simply evolving into a society where men no longer need violence and conquest to validate themselves. We've done pretty well. But there are pockets of neanderthalism not only because neanderthals still exist (and have cheering squads among young and old adolescents) but because the profits which come from "defense" and war are so huge that the very idea of ending war would be like.... well, ending the electronics industry or the industry which produces basic goods -- just unimaginable to those who have been making the money.
primative biological urges can addressed without killing other people.
And proud of it, Steissd? Or do you wish things could be resolved some other way?
First an extended appology to steissd.
Now, I don't think "Urbanization" has changed anything in humanity but make us "less" human.
Warfare, is a part of life that we can not seperate from, but a few factors have changed over the ages from the times of our distant fore fathers.
There is little honor in war now. Several things seperate us from the actual act of war, it is technology that does it.
Very rarely do we ever see the enemy anymore, my CSM was a great man and I think he was a better soldier, and a more honorable person because he fought mostly in Close Quaters Battle not at the usual average distance of about 300 feet.
The inability to see your enemy is what makes us less humane in our actions, we no longer are faced with mortal confrontation, just mortal fear.
Our warrior society is dead too, this is probably a good thing, we do not need bar fights erupting into pools of blood and vendettas and vigilantiasm.
Steissd says that we've found substitutes for war, but I think not.
It burns in most every man, a spirit to fight. It does not mean they beat people up, or play sports, but it is there, that understanding of what it should mean to face down someone else, and be the only one to return. Something animals do not have.
One of the few things that seperates us from the animals, are our ability to have religion, and to kill, justly, or in rage, but to kill.
I think though dyslexia, it is an erroneous statement to say that primal urges can be resolved without killing.
This is saying that all killing is a result of "primal urge" but this is not true, sometimes it is to fight off "Evil". War against the Nazis was not a "primal urge" and could never have been resolved peacefully.
The Romans invented a concept of "Just War." This is a burden and a blessing I suppose, the idea that you are fighting for a reason, however which reasons are worth fighting for? Other warrior societies didn't bother with this, but it is the Roman tradition we've taken, it has allowed Civilization to grow, but it can also with today's technology be our demise.
It is easy to quit fighting when you're fighting for money, but hard to stop when you're fighting for some concept of saving your soul, or damning a heathen, or saving your Political Ideology.
It is from this "Just War" that we run. Not from war in general. In humanity but particularly in men, burns a desire to charge off with his "king" and fight the Grendal and the Dragon.
But we see more and more, as we become educated that our urge to fight mustn't be confused with Idealism, or some idea that we are fighting for a "Just Cause" unless that just cause is truly just, and must be fought.
In 1945 the Just War was praised, but in 1963 it nearly ruined Earth.
I also urge that anyone who wishes to think further on this subject, not confuse the "Just War" with humanities undying urge to seek glory, on the battle field.
For it is in death we find the greatest reward. Not necissarily the death of our foes, but also in the deaths of ourselves.
For who does not die that has glory? One may achieve fame in their life time, but to be legendary, one must finally pass away, whether in battle or in their bed.
It is that eventual realization, that we must all die, that means we must seek immortality not in life, but in deeds.
War is not a "penile implant", it is in the soul, of all humans, to die for something greater than yourself. War, among other things of course, is just one of those things.
Well, I must say I have found the writing in here to be that of people who enjoy the freedoms our government has given us. And, how do you think it has been given? By people who think they need to kill people to feel masculine? nope! by people who feel they have no other options in life? nope! You have these freedoms because people like me, my brother and other people I serve with are proud of our rights and desire to protect those rights and to protect our families. As far as not having other options? people i serve with are teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, plummers, farmers electricians, proffesors...need i go on? People throughout the world long to be free. Are any of you out therer willing to defend your rights? or do you just want to sit off to the side and pontificate about things you do not have first hand knowledge of? Live history, don't just read about it.
signed: a proud SSG in the pennsylvania Army National Guard on his way to Iraq with a BA in history, a teacher a father a husband a brother and a son! And I amm also proud og my CMS brother in the Air force. Between the two of us, we have over 45 years of military service!
Well, Ralpheb, I hope you will not kill or toture any civilians over there and that you will return in one piece, and that your job and familiy will still be there for you if you do.
Now let's take one historical look at this warrior mentality myth with the example par excellence in Northern history, Charles XII, the warrior king, you certainly heard of him, having a BA in history and all.
Charles was the epitome of the warrior: very brave, an inspiration to his men, an able tactician on the battlefield (won some battles against overwhelming odds, etc.) and with a disdain for wishy-washy, flip-flopping cowardly politicians (read "diplomats", you know, the people who try to avoid war and make piece) and an admiration for Alexander the Great. Charles XII is an icon of nationalism in Sweden, but what did this super warrior achieve for his people?
In the Great Northern War (1700 - 1721) that hero Charles refused to end while he lived, Sweden, before the war a wealthy empire that encompassed much of the Baltic, lost all its Baltic possessions, with all the revenue and trade that it brought, Finland was ravaged, Sweden's own heartland was raided by Russians, the state was rendered destitute, the country lost the flower of its youth, the people starved. The situation got so bad that in the end his own officers in despair plotted to have him killed in order to save the nation from the so highly regarded warrior mentality of their king...
One quick reply, or not. I will Kill anyone who tries to hurt one of my fellow soldiers. no debate no discussion! If politicians did their jobs effectively, the military would be a boy scout camp. It is not our modern military that declares war. We are there at the diposal(yes that is the correct word!) of the politicians. Should politicians act as if they themselves were going onto the battlefield, there actions would be much wiser. Show me a soldier who WANTS war and I'll show you a lunatic. Show my a soldier who is willing to defend your rights and I'll show you a person who is proud of their heritage and is not ashamed of their uniform. As far as torture is concerned, please leave your bleeding heart BS for someone else and explain, in detail, why you have not one criticized the assholes who behead innocents.
And how have you protected your rights today?
So much for me sincerely wishing someone well.
I think the historical record shows that Finland, since its independence has done what it takes to defend its rights as a free and democratic country. Only we have done so in our own country, we have not travelled half accross the world to invade other countries, that have not attacked us, on the pretext of defending our rights.
The **** who started beheading innocents
after the country was invaded have not posted any messages on this history thread, why should I criticise them when responding to your message, which does not even mention them?
Furthermore, being proud of a uniform is not the best form of self-esteem, I prefer to be proud of myself and my achievements rather than of the clothes I wear. Many Finnish soldiers in the winter War (1939-1940) could not be issued with uniforms or even proper rifles. Did that make them less proud? The Russians did not think so.
I politely suggest you take your rant to one of the political threads unless you have something to offer concerning the topic of this discussion.
ralpheb - that was just plain rude. Doesn't matter who you are or what you do for a living, there is no excuse for such self-indulgent boorishness. Grow up.
And before you attack me - I've been protecting and defending people's rights for 35 years in my occupation. And I've never felt the need to wrap myself either in a flag or the uniform I wear. I've just gone out and done it.
Paaskynen wrote:..I think the historical record shows that Finland, since its independence has done what it takes to defends its rights as a free and democratic country. Only we have done so in our own country, we have not travelled half accross the world to invade other countries, that have not attacked us, on the pretext of defending our rights.
We also attacked Germany, who had not invaded our country, because it was necessary. Having someone invade your country is only one of several moral justifications for attacking him.
Paaskynen wrote:The **** who started beheading innocents after the country was invaded..
If they were indigenous, which is not clear, invasion of their country is justification for killing soldiers, not for sawing the heads off living non-combatants as they scream in agony. Your apparent attempt to justify the practice is appalling.
Brandon9000 wrote:We also attacked Germany, who had not invaded our country, because it was necessary. Having someone invade your country is only one of several moral justifications for attacking him.
Obviously--the merchant sailors who died when German submarines attacked our shipping in our territorial waters long before a shot was fired in anger by an American at a German would certainly not have wanted us to stand on ceremony. You do extremely well with science, Brandon, but you know feck-all about history--you'd do better not to allude to it when attempting to support you feeble justifications for an immoral and illegal war.
Brandon9000 wrote:
We also attacked Germany, who had not invaded our country, because it was necessary. Having someone invade your country is only one of several moral justifications for attacking him.
Nazi Germany declared war on the US in December 1941, and immediately attacked US interests at sea. If they had had the means (long range bombers or sea launched rockets) they would certainly have attacked US territory as well. The US were therefore totally justified to invade Germany in the Second World War.
Brandon9000 wrote:Paaskynen wrote:The **** who started beheading innocents after the country was invaded..
If they were indigenous, which is not clear, invasion of their country is justification for killing soldiers, not for sawing the heads off living non-combatants as they scream in agony. Your apparent attempt to justify the practice is appalling.
If you read carefully, you see that I wrote
the country, not their country. And if US combatants can go to other countries and kill civilians (whether intentionally or as "collateral damage") in "defence of freedom", then why complain about others doing the same in "defence of islam". I do not justify
ANY killing of civilians, I do not see how you can draw that conclusion on the basis of what I wrote. What I alluded at is that you cannot use the beheadings which occured after the invasion as an excuse for the invasion. And I repeat again, that the **** were not at all mentioned in ralpheb's original post, so why should I have criticised them? They have nothing to do with the subject which was the history of the warrior mentality in the military.
Setanta wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:We also attacked Germany, who had not invaded our country, because it was necessary. Having someone invade your country is only one of several moral justifications for attacking him.
Obviously--the merchant sailors who died when German submarines attacked our shipping in our territorial waters long before a shot was fired in anger by an American at a German would certainly not have wanted us to stand on ceremony. You do extremely well with science, Brandon, but you know feck-all about history--you'd do better not to allude to it when attempting to support you feeble justifications for an immoral and illegal war.
Your theatrics aside, Germany had not invaded the US, and our war with them was not a resistance movement. We have gone to war numerous times with countries which have not invaded ours. That is simply not the criterion for going to war.
Paaskynen wrote:
And if US combatants can go to other countries and kill civilians (whether intentionally or as "collateral damage") in "defence of freedom", then why complain about others doing the same in "defence of islam".
Are you comparing the killing of civilians in a war zone by people who are trying to spare them, with the kidnapping and decapitation murder of a civilian by people who had targetted him specifically?
For the victims and their bereaved families it makes little difference whether they are killed by a bullet in the belly fired by someone who is ostensibly trying to spare them, or through decapitation by somebody who definitely desires to kill them, in both cases they are innocent and very dead.
But what does this have to do with the history of the warrior mentality in the military?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace