Soldiers and sacrifice

[RedRain]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

I don't think I'd want a friend who values my life over his/her own to the point where they would literally sacrifice his/her life. And I don't want a saviour who is a martyr. Lets rewrite the Bible so that Jesus lives (as a human being). What your wrote is not a healthy conception of love, in my opinion

Thread derailment daily count: 1

Let's not rewrite the Bible.

Soldiers lay down their lives for their countries all the time.

I see that as love, and not unhealthy.

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by RedRain

Let's not rewrite the Bible.

Soldiers lay down their lives for their countries all the time.

I see that as love, and not unhealthy.

Did you ever read ‘Vanity Fair’ by Thackeray? It is a massive tome of +1000 pages. Anyway, there is this character George who is very eager to prove him self in the war of 1812; his self-worth counted on it. He eventually goes and he dies a rather unspectacular death. He was forgotten by the majority of people and he only left pain for his family. He didn’t end up a hero. He just ended up a lifeless corpse.

This is just sheer speculation on my part, but do you think it is just a coincidence that the majority of people who join the US army are from lower socioeconomic conditions? Certainly economic opportunity plays a role in all of this. The army offers to pay for education, if I recall correctly. But don’t you think issues of self-worth are involved? If you have to run off and fight wars of imperialism in order to prove your self-worth, quite frankly, I find you rather pathetic (as in, I feel sorry for you). I’d rather stay close to my family and friends. Love them, dine with them, support them, cry with them, laugh and be merry with them. Not only for them, but for my self. In doing so, I celebrate life; there is spirituality in living, not death. That is why I prefer a living Jesus and not a brutalized corpse.



Yah Jesus! You show 'em!

[RedRain]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

Did you ever read ‘Vanity Fair’ by Thackeray? It is a massive tome of +1000 pages. Anyway, there is this character George who is very eager to prove him self in the war of 1812; his self-worth counted on it. He eventually goes and he dies a rather unspectacular death. He was forgotten by the majority of people and he only left pain for his family. He didn’t end up a hero. He just ended up a lifeless corpse.

This is just sheer speculation on my part, but do you think it is just a coincidence that the majority of people who join the US army are from lower socioeconomic conditions? Certainly economic opportunity plays a role in all of this. The army offers to pay for education, if I recall correctly. But don’t you think issues of self-worth are involved? If you have to run off and fight wars of imperialism in order to prove your self-worth, quite frankly, I find you rather pathetic (as in, I feel sorry for you). I’d rather stay close to my family and friends. Love them, dine with them, support them, cry with them, laugh and be merry with them. Not only for them, but for my self. In doing so, I celebrate life; there is spirituality in living, not death. That is why I prefer a living Jesus and not a brutalized corpse.

The only reason you can say this at all is because of people before you having died for your freedom.

It seems a rather obvious point.

ETA: "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
George Orwell

[ZephyrusX]

I honestly don't believe that. The only war (that I am aware of) that I may consider as legitimate was WWII because of the social darwinism slant. There are some other interventions in Africa that I would have liked to see. A lot of the time though, I think war is done in the name of imperialism. Even during WWII, America took advantage of Europe's plight to get concessions they normally would not have gotten under normal circumstances. It wasn't strictly an act of altruism.

I don't give my respect to a soldier just because he/she is a solider. He/she has to earn my respect the same as everyone else. If you want to die for imperialism, that just makes you a fool. You can claim that it is done 'for my freedom' all you want. I'll always go with my own opinion in the end. I feel sort of sorry for the soldiers who went to Vietnam and came back to face a mob of people who wanted only to spit on them. But in the end, what did they expect? A population to give them respect simply because they are soldiers? No.

Originally Posted by RedRain

The only reason you can say this at all is because of people before you having died for your freedom.

It seems a rather obvious point.

ETA: "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
George Orwell

[Michael Chui]

You're both being ridiculously simplistic about the soldier thing. It's neither "they die for your freedom" nor "they made a poor choice of service".

There are generally two reasons that a soldier fights, kills, and dies. The first is that they're ordered to. The second is that their friends are standing next to them. Neither of these are about the general public: they're about being a soldier. They know themselves to be soldiers, and that sets them apart from the civilians, and that becomes a focus for their identity.

Romanticizing or vilifying them are equally disrespectful. As noted, since warfare was revolutionized to be the province of peasants rather than aristocrats, soldiers are generally drawn from the bottom of the economic barrel. They are, by nature, the most disadvantaged segment of their society. The officer corps is a different story; they're generally not in the line of fire anyways.

Their sacrifice isn't their life. It's their normalcy. And it's generally not an intentional sacrifice. Personally, I pity them.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

You're both being ridiculously simplistic about the soldier thing. It's neither "they die for your freedom" nor "they made a poor choice of service".

Often times it's not a much of a choice--a point you and ZX have both made. Military or McDonalds? I can see why a lot of people choose it.

Romanticizing or vilifying them are equally disrespectful.
....
Personally, I pity them.

I generally don't associate pity with respect, either. There are some soldiers I respect (though not solely for their choice of being a soldier, and only for that at all in a certain context) and others I don't (same caveat).

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

I generally don't associate pity with respect, either. There are some soldiers I respect (though not solely for their choice of being a soldier, and only for that at all in a certain context) and others I don't (same caveat).

There's respect, there's no respect, and there's disrespect. And I'm certainly not claiming to respect them.

Oh for the days when we said the same thing about missionaries.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

There's respect, there's no respect, and there's disrespect. And I'm certainly not claiming to respect them.

Gotcha. People I don't know more about than their occupation tend to fall in the second category for me.

Oh for the days when we said the same thing about missionaries.

Could you explain the reference here?

[RedRain]

I definitely respect soldiers who do their job honestly, faithfully and justly.

I see no reason I shouldn't romanticize what they do.

What they put themselves through each day is amazing to me and I'm glad they do, so I don't have to.

I think anyone who doesn't romanticize it to some extent must be sort of disconnected from reality.

[Agota]

Originally Posted by RedRain

I definitely respect soldiers who do their job honestly, faithfully and justly.

I see no reason I shouldn't romanticize what they do.

What they put themselves through each day is amazing to me and I'm glad they do, so I don't have to.

I think anyone who doesn't romanticize it to some extent must be sort of disconnected from reality.

There's no black and white, but you seem to have a very romantic perception of war. What about torturing, raping and killing people? It's not only done by the people on the side of villains, there are many people on the side of "freedom defenders" who rape teenagers or torture civilians. This is why many people don't romanticize war that much: there is a noble side of defending vulnerable people and there's an ugly side of torturing,raping and killing people who are vulnerable but happen to be on the other side just because their nationality is different. When you look to soldiers, how do you know which ones they are, noble ones or evil ones?

That aside, wars often serve interests of much bigger players than we could think about and it might be that a noble soldier who wants to defend freedom and human rights is actually in danger because of someone's agenda to get oil, or something else, in short, something that brings money.

I'm not against military, since sometimes military intervention is necessary because groups of violent people can't be stopped by peaceful means. I'm simply saying that not everything is black and white.

[RedRain]

Originally Posted by Agota

There's no black and white, but you seem to have a very romantic perception of war. What about torturing, raping and killing people? It's not only done by the people on the side of villains, there are many people on the side of "freedom defenders" who rape teenagers or torture civilians. This is why many people don't romanticize war that much: there is a noble side of defending vulnerable people and there's an ugly side of torturing,raping and killing people who are vulnerable but happen to be on the other side just because their nationality is different. When you look to soldiers, how do you know which ones they are, noble ones or evil ones?

That aside, wars often serve interests of much bigger players than we could think about and it might be that a noble soldier who wants to defend freedom and human rights is actually in danger because of someone's agenda to get oil, or something else, in short, something that brings money.

I'm not against military, since sometimes military intervention is necessary because groups of violent people can't be stopped by peaceful means. I'm simply saying that not everything is black and white.

This is why I included the "I definitely respect soldiers who do their job honestly, faithfully and justly." part.

[Tanja]

Originally Posted by RedRain

and justly." part.

If they are to do their job justly, wouldn't that mean (most of the time) refusing to carry out orders?

[faithsdaddy]

I respect the soldiers for the difficult and scary job that they do. I admire their discipline and courage.

But, they are little more than robots. If they are given a suicide mission, or one that they can improve- tough. No choice and little voice. Do as you're told.

Also, wars are gone into with very politically and financially based motives. Where was the world's soldiers when all the genocide was at it's worst in Africa? When women, children and babies were being cut up and burned- where were the forces then? But they are there when there's oil to be controlled.

The life of a soldier is not in alignment with real spirituality.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by RedRain

I see no reason I shouldn't romanticize what they do.

It lends you towards immorality.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

Could you explain the reference here?

During the colonial period, being a missionary was an equally life-threatening task since it meant going into a land largely believed to be full of people who want to kill you, scalp you, and turn you into soup.

So in those days, RedRain would have accused ZephyrusX of being an atheist rather than being unpatriotic. And that would have been more entertaining.

[taylor]

Like Zeph was saying, I don't respect soldiers because of their job, I respect them because they are fellow human beings.

I think the common response is either to romanticize soldiers, or to hate them for political/ethical reasons. Either one doesn't make sense to me.

If you hate them, you aren't taking into account that they are doing what they believe to be the right thing in almost every case. Most soldiers I know are very patriotic and believe their job is a duty and admirable.

If you romanticize them, you are perpetuating the idea that having a part in war and violence is a good thing just by principle. It's not a black and white thing though, so should the soldier be praised for contributing to wars fought for political reasons? By giving praise for waging war, you are giving assent to it, and become a part of it in a way.

I feel the same way about missionaries actually. On the one hand I respect them because they are doing what they believe is right, but on the other hand I don't agree with their cause so I can't give them praise on that level.

[Alstar]

Originally Posted by RedRain

I definitely respect soldiers who do their job honestly, faithfully and justly.

I see no reason I shouldn't romanticize what they do.

What they put themselves through each day is amazing to me and I'm glad they do, so I don't have to.

I think anyone who doesn't romanticize it to some extent must be sort of disconnected from reality.

??? Romanticism by its definition implies a disconnect from reality.

But since you're keen to emphasize a disconnect from reality, how many wars can you name that, without military intervention and success, your country would have been invaded and destroyed? Where exactly does the "they protect me/my freedoms" - "they do the job so I don't have to" mentality come from? Because as far as I (and other intelligent people) can see, it's not rooted in reality at all, it's rooted in jingoistic slogans which only the weak of mind choose not to think about or challenge.

[LostMyMap]

Originally Posted by Alstar

Because as far as I (and other intelligent people) can see, it's not rooted in reality at all, it's rooted in jingoistic slogans which only the weak of mind choose not to think about or challenge.

Is this then, The Truth (tm), or more a matter of your fairly large limitations in what you see?

[LostMyMap]

Originally Posted by faithsdaddy

But, they are little more than robots.

The life of a soldier is not in alignment with real spirituality.

Here we go again with Pavlina forum pattern #1, the gross generalization.

{All|most|similar type word} {are|are not} {some unprovable, often provocative conclusion}

Being in the military is such an intense life experience that is so different from anything else, that if you haven't experienced it yourself, or put in a huge amount of effort in understanding it, well you simply don't. But it's not so difficult to get on an Internet forum and tout your alleged intelligence and some statistic to back up your incorrect opinions is it?

[Alstar]

Originally Posted by LostMyMap

Is this then, The Truth (tm), or more a matter of your fairly large limitations in what you see?

It's a matter of opinion. Whether it's the truth or not I don't know, only so far as any other opinion can be considered truth, but based on the evidence it would appear that it really is a bunch of jingoistic crap which nobody ever cares to even try and support with real, hard facts. I have never, ever seen evidence to the contrary. If you have some, then that would be interesting.

[faithsdaddy]

Originally Posted by LostMyMap

Here we go again with Pavlina forum pattern #1, the gross generalization.

{All|most|similar type word} {are|are not} {some unprovable, often provocative conclusion}

Being in the military is such an intense life experience that is so different from anything else, that if you haven't experienced it yourself, or put in a huge amount of effort in understanding it, well you simply don't. But it's not so difficult to get on an Internet forum and tout your alleged intelligence and some statistic to back up your incorrect opinions is it?

Pretty much everything I do in my life is my choice. How I spend my time, what I do, where I go. That's not the life of a soldier. Many major choices are made for them. FWIW, I've known loads of soldiers and I'm a curious enough bloke that I've listened to lots of stories, so I feel I have a good overview.

Firstly, you criticised my generalisation with one of your own. I don't need to 'be' a soldier to get a sufficient grasp of what it entails. Questioning my 'alleged intelligence' and suggesting I need statistics before my opinion can be validated is a very weak, fear based failure of logic. Suggesting that having an opinion makes me wrong is a very bigoted view. Perhaps you don't feel I've earned the right to have an opinion? Your method of argument was to literally criticise me to undermine my view. You didn't have the skill to criticise what I was saying. That's a shameful way to behave.

So, you've attacked me without finding a peaceful way to disagree. I think I know of a job where that attitude will fit in just nicely...

[GeorgeMagister]

Originally Posted by RedRain

The only reason you can say this at all is because of people before you having died for your freedom.

While some people have died for freedom, in a matter that wasn't in vain and made a difference, others have not. I find this dichotomy of all vs. nothing to be utterly insulting to any uniformed individual, ever, and to the human condition itself.

It's a huge logical fallacy that dying in the line of duty, in pursuit of a military mission, is a selfless death.

As someone who was among the ranks of the armed forces of the U.S., I can safely say that not everyone shares a noble mindset of sacrifice for the country. Everyone in that position can acknowledge that death is possible, but the impetus behind careers or compliance to orders is not identical. You are simplifying the actions of everyone who has ever had to carry arms for a greater entity than themselves. I certainly did not risk my life for the nation. United in cause is not tantamount to united in motivation.

I know that some field grade officers who have died in the line of duty did not serve selflessly, they were making a career for themselves without regard to the nation they were representing. Some of these stellar individuals placed greater burdens on their subordinates so that they could live more comfortably in remote locations that were at the bottom of the logistical chain. Please don't spout generalizations of nobility securing the freedom of the original responder.

Also, civilians intentionally suffer, die, and get tortured for causes. Although, for them, it is never acknowledged as noble. A total crock that is. Soldiers should be treated with the same skepticism as the general population. After all, they come from the general population.

BTW: Michael, your first post was awesome.

Originally Posted by RedRain

This is why I included the "I definitely respect soldiers who do their job honestly, faithfully and justly." part.

So, despite the fact that I carried out my duties honestly, faithfully, and justly (albeit hampered by a degree of depression throughout), does my pragmatic attitude and the fact that I was only serving to financially support my family not afford me that same degree of respect? I'm really curious.

[ZephyrusX]

To be honest, I'm not even sure why this was split into a separate thread. I take responsibility as I probably didn't make a strong connection between my central argument and my points. Admittedly, I also have a tendency to go on random tangents.

Just to clarify, the original exchange between Redrain and my self concerned the nature of love and whether self-sacrifice and martyrdom is a form of love. I honestly don't think so, but that is just my opinion. Love is two or more individuals acting on their own interests who happen to share their lives with each other in a compatible and mutually beneficial way. I don't care if you call this romantic love, companionship or what have you. It all sort of seems like the same thing to me. Love is not self-sacrifice, in my opinion. If there is a grave problem in a relationship, lets work together to solve it. If there is a grave problem in our global or national community, lets work together to rectify it. I don't want you to crucify your self on my behalf. I don't want you to die in a war on my behalf. I don't want you to over look your own intersts on my behalf. I don't want another hero.

In regards to soldiers, of course there are some who enter the army (or whatever) and die because of intrinsic reasons. I don't have as much problem with these people, though I honestly don't agree with their political objectives a lot of the time (there are a few exceptions as I pointed out earlier). On the other hand, there probably are soldiers from lower socioeconomic classes who enter the army wishing to become 'a hero' in the eyes of others in order to boast their self-worth. Just don't expect other people to actually see you this way. Unless you were conscripted, you made the decision to join the army your self. No one is obligated to give you respect. I certainly won't for the reasons I listed above.

[Cado]

Honestly, most of the wars America fights are absolutely pointless. There's no defense of freedom there, just a furthering of agendas. There's nothing noble in that even if some noble people lend themselves to the cause.

In fact it's because of them that I'd like to see patriotism take a backseat to pragmatism. You can persuade a nation to do almost anything when you use soaring rhetoric with terms like "freedom" and "sacrifice"-it's a lot harder to move those same people to fight because we want to claim another oil field or prop up a dictator just because it helps us politically.

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by Michael

There are generally two reasons that a soldier fights, kills, and dies. The first is that they're ordered to. The second is that their friends are standing next to them. Neither of these are about the general public: they're about being a soldier. They know themselves to be soldiers, and that sets them apart from the civilians, and that becomes a focus for their identity

I want to understand this better, so I'll dish out some random questions. I originally brought up soldiers in regards to self-sacrifice due to the amount of media coverage on patriotism and heroism (god, I hate Nancy Grace ). It is all about sacrifice to your country. But do soliders actually think this way or is this just the rhetoric that is propagated by civilians and the media?

What does it mean to 'be a soldier' if it is not self-sacrifice? I suppose I could see some people joining the military and just treating it like a career. What in the world made them choose the military though?

I'd prefer to hear some answers from people who actually served in the military (or navy etc), or at the very least, know a great deal about army culture.

[GeorgeMagister]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

Just don't expect other people to actually see you this way. Unless you were conscripted, you made the decision to join the army your self. No one is obligated to give you respect. I certainly won't for the reasons I listed above.

I'm not asking for or making an appeal for respect, and I certainly didn't demand it from anyone. I was trying to engage RedRain's logic head on. It was a direct address to him, so I'm not aware of why it could appear I'm saying "respect me" to any passersby. So, just that it's clear to everyone, before anyone flags me as pulling that card out, I didn't.

On the contrary, I happen to align with your view, Zephyrus. I was uncomfortable with all the "thank you"s and whatnot that I used to get when I wore the uniform (reluctantly) anywhere in public, following 9/11/2001. I am not defined by my former job and my character does not receive merit for having chose that in the past. I want to be respected for the content of my character as it demonstrates in the present, not for the weight of my actions burdening me in the past.

It was a question, albeit one with loaded, cynical phrasing. (I'll apologize for the poor tone of my first post, RedRain). I won't try to excuse the crappy attitude I came into this thread with, so sorry to everyone in general for dragging baggage into this thread, today.

I was trying to engage his line of thinking on his terms. I served by his definition of service (I believe) in which he speaks of respect, and yet because I don't believe in nationalism or patriotism I am trying to see if that would make me not respectable by RedRain's terms. The vast majority of service-people execute their duties with fidelity and all that jazz for their entire career, yet they still feel the same way I do: without that added dimension of personally shielding the citizenry.

The last point I just made is due to the simple truth that, in the end, a position in a national armed force is a job. It is certainly not a way to distinguish yourself. It's a very thankless profession, and rightfully so. It has opportunities for advancement and exploitation, like any other hierarchical organization. Your life can be in jeopardy as a matter of course in countless civilian professions. The only palpable difference being that it has a separate, harsher, less-appealable justice system.

My two posts summarized: Because it is just another job, I don't think it entitles anyone to respect or disrespect by virtue of affiliation.

[ZephyrusX]

Thanks for sharing GeorgeMagnus. Michael's post makes more sense after reading your two posts.

[RedRain]

I'm sure the death toll in a soldier's line of work is higher than most other lines of work.

Many soldiers I've heard from seem to care something for their country, and fighting for it.

Maybe I just know the good ones.

[ZephyrusX]

@RedRain



Buddy Christ loves you!

[RedRain]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

@RedRain



Buddy Christ loves you!

So does Jesus.