Has the nature of armed forces changed?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by billwald, Apr 3, 2010.

  1. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why don't you just come out and share your outright disdain for our fighting men and women? Quit beating around the bush. Make it clean how much you dislike them, and don't respect them. Of course, they're willing to fight for your freedom to hold these ridiculous views....
     
  3. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a sister in-law who has been institutionalized for the past thirty years due to schizophrenia.

    More than once I have wondered what it would be like to view the world the way she does.
     
  4. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,542
    Likes Received:
    208
    LOL

    I started to write an e-mail to Mr. Rockwell, and then I read a couple of his other writings.

    Wow. This guy is *out of touch*. Does not have a clue. Envisions a perfect reality that doesn't exist.

    First problem: He recites four things that soldiers, "he's told," are supposed to do; one of them is only partially correct, and the other is completely incorrect.

    Soldiers are required to follow the orders of their officers -- unless those orders are unlawful or unethical.

    Soldiers must never question the orders of their officers -- False. Each order must be judged to be lawful and ethical. If it doesn't meet that criteria, then it is an invalid order, and the soldier is not required to follow it ... further, they are *required* and *duty-bound* not to follow it.

    For example, if an officer "orders" you to lie about a situation. That is an unethical, and potentially unlawful order.

    Reading through a couple of Mr. Rockwell's other writings, he also makes the statement that war is never necessary. Wow, is that ever wishful thinking.

    Mr. Rockwell also wants to believe that a country never wants to go to war. That's a fallacy of "projection" (meaning, believing or wanting to believe that everyone else thinks like you do). All we have to do is go back to right after 9/11, and look at the songs that became huge public hits to determine what the people of the country thought.

    My final thought: Mr. Rockwell also misses the point about Christian duty to protect others, and to obey our rulers, because they have been established by God. To resist those authorities is to rebel against God.
     
  5. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trying to make the point that it is the leadership, not the troops who are dishonorable. I forget that Baptists take all communications literally, don't understand figures of speech, irony . . . . I suppose that's what comes from literally interpreting the KJV from childhood.
     
  6. Nonsequitur

    Nonsequitur
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    637
    Likes Received:
    0

    "I forgot that "Baptists"





    GEE! Well.
    Alhue Akbar!
    CodBrain!
    And this means you too CTB.
    Commie.
     
  7. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lawrence M. Vance makes some good points.... which many who enter the military aren't told: Men join the military to provide for the defense of their country. But, once they are in, they aren't given political choices except to vote.

    Once they are in, they are under the indoctrination of the military: They are prepared mentally, emotionally, and physically to target whoever is the enemy, without question, hesitation, or conscience. A display of any of these latter 3 attributes in a soldier's conduct or communication becomes a disciplinary problem for his superiors and is a blot on his record which may affect promotions and assignments. This doesn't mean that the soldier doesn't have moral choices and options...... but it does mean that he has to be quite certain of the ground on which he stands if confronting an order or command. Because he is under the command and authority of others, he is not normally in the loop of making decisions or knowing the information which supports the decisions and orders which he is given. (Another recent thread concerning a lone survivors story of following a command decision regarding engagement and confronting the enemy.... is evidence of the constrictions placed upon soldiers in the field regarding doing as they are told. In that particular case... the lives of some might have been spared if they'd thrown the book away and engaged the enemy on the enemy's own terms and possibly faced disciplinary actions and court martial latter if the brass had any complaint to denounce their decisions to fight.)

    L. M. Vance is correct. In general, we acknowledge the last previous paragraph, regardless of our position supporting or against war: Yet, in effect, we deny its reality when a soldier breaks rank to expose some deed under command, or a soldier breaks rank and refuses to follow an order: Often times we don't want to face their reality. Many soldiers return with experiences which were horrifying at the time, for them or shared by their comrades. Many return with experiences which left them with conflicts of conscience, which they'd like to suppress and forget about; conflicts of experience and conscience which they have trouble talking about to each other..... and dare not reveal to most civilians...... less they be judged as lessor men than they were or judged for their deeds.

    The soldier deserves our support. Most, if not all, deserve our understanding. We are the ones who've helped to keep alive the love of country, the nobility of protecting us against our enemies, the willingness to offer at the risk of their lives, a momentary glimpse of glory in the stirring belief that they are keeping us safe.

    The most inflaming part of his whole post, imo, is this excerpt:
    What is so inflaming about it is..... while it may be his indictment of the military....... IF IT IS TRUE????? .......it is an indictment for all of us if we have allowed our leaders to propel us into unjust and unnecessary wars on the wings of emotion and exaggerated fears. We want the military to be at readiness and stand for our protection and defense. The military soldier depends on us to protect him from having to fight in unnecessary and unjust wars. Unfortunately, the verdict of whether a war is 'just' or not, doesn't always come in until years later when historians, researchers, and scholars have done the sifting through the memoirs, declassified documents and communications, and discover the secret cabal, of people of influence in nations which conspired years in advance to create the opportunity for war.

    I think that the people of most nations do not want war: Those who have seen war's devastation upon their own land and people want it least.... and those who have fought and seen the devastation among the ranks of their own generation would not want it in the lives of their children if they thought it was unjust.

    Therein lies the question: Can you have a generation willing to fight and protect you if it can be proven that previous wars were unjust? Is it essential to be lest than candid concerning the experience of war and the questions which do arise during and after its course..... when recruiting for the military? Can soldiers be kept at fighting readiness without having to be engaged in some kind of persistent conflict? How does a Christian reconcile his devotion to God when he joins the military and is expected to submit to the orders of man, whether just or unjust?

    My own conclusion: To each according to their conscience and calling under God. Render unto 'Cesar the things which are Cesar's and unto God, the things which belong to God. The Bible tells of many wars, in its historic accounts and how God preserved individuals and nations through them.

    The Bible also, soberly states that those who live by the sword will die by the sword...... so this may be expected as the norm rather than the exception. My own question concerning this last statement...... is it just the soldier it is speaking of......... or could it also be to a nation who once believed in God and once abhorred all unnecessary engagements.... who's people boast that they are the government but have failed to restrain government ......... a people who have failed to keep their conscience in government and have, instead, submitted themselves to accept the moral conscience of their government and approve the ways of its leadership as always being right? Could this be an indictment on such a nation which has allowed itself to become the tool of the nations of this world to police other tribes and nations into a conformity of man's own making and purpose?

    I neither agree totally with this opinion piece nor can I, in good conscience, totally disagree.
     
  8. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,542
    Likes Received:
    208
    You're trying to make that point? Because Mr. Vance certainly isn't. It's pretty clear that he holds the soldier in as much disdain as the leadership.

    If it's you trying to make that distinction, then work on your communication skills. It's hard enough to ensure people understand what you're trying to say in print; it's harder on internet message boards.
     
  9. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0

    That's quite all right.

    I'm used to posts being on-topic and making a modicum of sense.
     
  10. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    You can take this idea and file it in the toilet where it belongs!
     
  11. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    0
    You sure are easily upset! He didn't say anything against Christ; he just ask an interesting question.

    I believe the Roman soldiers were blinded and did not know what they were doing. After all, crucification was common, and this was all in a days work, as far as these soldiers were concerned. I would imagine, in their minds, they were serving Rome like they were paid to do.
     

Share This Page

Loading...