The Military

[Daisy Buchanan]

Yeah, I suppose. I wasn't trying to argue that nazi germany or any of the axis powers were all fine and dandy, but at the time it was pretty realitive. People who fougth for Nazi Germany then thought they were doing a great thing and if they had won...who knows? Thats all I'm sayng. But different things apply at different times. War just upsets me is all, but its happening weather I like it or not.

OK, the total annihalation of a people is never thought of as a "great thing". Nazi's didn't think they were doing a great thing, they were looking to rule the world and kill all of the people they just didn't like!! Big difference. An evil axis like that will always be wrong and always be fought, it will hopefully never become the new norm.

 

[ArrowCollarMan]

No, the induviduals. Most of them had no clue. Arg, but lets not get into that. Apparently I'm saying somethig wrong. I'm sorry

 

[Viola]

OK, the total annihalation of a people is never thought of as a "great thing". Nazi's didn't think they were doing a great thing, they were looking to rule the world and kill all of the people they just didn't like!! Big difference. An evil axis like that will always be wrong and always be fought, it will hopefully never become the new norm.

Well morally they'd always be wrong, but the guys in charge did think they were doing a great thing. Never underestimate the delusional mindset of a psychopath.

It wouldn't matter to me what they thought, 'cause I'd be dead.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Along with six million others.

.

 

[Viola]

Along with six million others.

.

More than that. Hell, just counting the Jewish pop. of the US would bounce you up a couple million.

 

[ArrowCollarMan]

Yeah, I can never agree with mass genocide. People do some horrible, horrible things to people. I fear we can never eliminate such hate.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Arrow, you are certainly entitled to your opinion and I do respect it. War is hell and should only be entered into as a LAST RESORT. Just remember one thing. Those serving are not the ones responsible for policy. They are doing their jobs. If you hate the policy vote out those who brought it about but don't take it out on the guys and gals doing their best in sometimes impossible situations. Support all of those who are putting their lives on the line. I joined the Corps to go to Nam. I thought it was the right thing to do. I missed Nam by a few months but will never regret serving in the Marines. Looking back I remember the attitude of folks towards veterans. I hope that never happens again. Let your family members know that you support and are proud of then even if you don't believe in war.

 

[ArrowCollarMan]

Like I said, I'm supporting them anyway. It is a shame that service men got treated so poorly in the Vietnam Era (wasn't it a trend to hate the military or something?) because they have no say, they just follow orders which is what soldiers are supposed to do. I'm changing the way I'm looking at this, alot of the reason why I made this thread was to give me some insight and understand a bit of what is bothering me so. I felt really crappy because I thought I was dishonoring them. They're my family, I don't want to hate what they do and besides there is no reason for it. I'm not here to bash veterans or disrespect the military. Most of what I'm trying to do is understand something. I feel that I'll appriciate more of what the military stands for when I see my Cousin Matt graduate from boot camp. I'm really looking forward to seeing him in his Marine uniform, I want to see how he turned out (and wheather he still wants to be a sniper). I wouldn't miss it for the world.

 

[Section10]

First off, not all vets come home with "nightmares". War has its horrors but someone who is basically well-adjusted can deal with those. The "basket-case Nam vet" is a stereotype, not an all-encompassing reality.

As for war being "morally reprehensible", the consequences of not fighting evil are much much greater. Sometimes killing fewer now can prevent greater killing later, making war the moral option.

Contrast the losses due to the fighting in WWII in Europe with the losses in the death camps, in the Pacific with the Rape of Nanking and China as a whole or the POW death camps. When evil is not resisted with countering violence from within or without you end up with the losses in Russia under Stalin and under the Communist Party, the losses in Cambodia and China and Myanmar. The slaughters in the Sudan and Rwanda.

A good war, civil or otherwise, could have removed from power those who who would kill on a massive scale. Those who will never be convinced or removed from power by non-violent resistance.

I will admit that at times there seems to be no other way to deal with tyranny and if so, I will not condemn.

The words 'good war' just don't seem to go together though. If it must be then let it be seen for what it is. An incredibly dirty business that although perhaps the last option (and I do support those who find themselves involved), still, what a tremendous pity that it chose to come to such an end.

I'm sure in WW2 the Germans and Japanese soldiers believed they were doing what they thought was best for their countrys' national interests. From our perspective that was bad. Whoever wins the war gets to interpret it.

I wonder if 'dealing with' human tragedy is a sign of being well-adjusted.

 

[carebear]

I will admit that at times there seems to be no other way to deal with tyranny and if so, I will not condemn.

The words 'good war' just don't seem to go together though. If it must be then let it be seen for what it is. An incredibly dirty business that although perhaps the last option (and I do support those who find themselves involved), still, what a tremendous pity that it chose to come to such an end.

I'm sure in WW2 the Germans and Japanese soldiers believed they were doing what they thought was best for their countrys' national interests. From our perspective that was bad. Whoever wins the war gets to interpret it.

I wonder if 'dealing with' human tragedy is a sign of being well-adjusted.

What has to be overcome for civilization to continue is this recent and illogical belief in absolute moral relativism. Actions are either objectively good or bad, mostly determined by their motives.

If I shoot you to gain your money, or to make my escape from a robbery or simply for pleasure I have a reason which makes sense to me. However, no matter how reasonable I may believe it to be, I am committing an evil act.

If I shoot you to prevent you shooting me, or shooting another party, who did not do anything to objectively justify you shooting them, I am committing the same act as before, but it is legally and objectively a "good" act due to my pure motive.

The lives of the innocent are in fact always worth more than the lives of the evil, no matter how reasonable the evil believe their actions to be.

As for the "well, they believed they were right" claptrap. You can be "sincere" in your beliefs and be sincerely and objectively wrong.

As far as dealing with horror without mental collapse, I would state that a rational adult human should and would realize that at times actions are necessary that may indeed be horrible but are objectively justifiable and thus "good". If that's the case, there is no need for crippling guilt or nightmares. You simply did what had to be done and for an objectively good reason. You may not have wanted to do it but in the end the "good" are forced by evil to act to resist evil.

To paraphrase a man I respect greatly "...evil is not overcome by fleeing or hiding from it."

 

[Phil]

I think war is a very difficult subject, there is not just black and white, there are miles of gray area. One could say that war can do good as our revoloution did and made America the country it is today. on the other hand though, war can also be very futile as seen in Vitenam. Either way, your cousin is doing our country a great service, as I've said before, wether or not you support the wars that America gets into, at least support our troops.

 

[Section10]

What has to be overcome for civilization to continue is this recent and illogical belief in absolute moral relativism. Actions are either objectively good or bad, mostly determined by their motives.

If I shoot you to gain your money, or to make my escape from a robbery or simply for pleasure I have a reason which makes sense to me. However, no matter how reasonable I may believe it to be, I am committing an evil act.

If I shoot you to prevent you shooting me, or shooting another party, who did not do anything to objectively justify you shooting them, I am committing the same act as before, but it is legally and objectively a "good" act due to my pure motive.

The lives of the innocent are in fact always worth more than the lives of the evil, no matter how reasonable the evil believe their actions to be.

As for the "well, they believed they were right" claptrap. You can be "sincere" in your beliefs and be sincerely and objectively wrong.

As far as dealing with horror without mental collapse, I would state that a rational adult human should and would realize that at times actions are necessary that may indeed be horrible but are objectively justifiable and thus "good". If that's the case, there is no need for crippling guilt or nightmares. You simply did what had to be done and for an objectively good reason. You may not have wanted to do it but in the end the "good" are forced by evil to act to resist evil.

To paraphrase a man I respect greatly "...evil is not overcome by fleeing or hiding from it."

I'd say I'm one of the least moral relativists on this forum. In fact my problem with war is due to my lack of moral relativism. If horrible actions are seen as good and necessary in certain instances, that is moral relativism.
No doubt the Axis regime was an evil one, but I think that the ordinary German soldier was no more evil than anyone else. He may have been manipulated but is it a soldier's job to think independently or is it to simply follow orders and do what his superiors tell him? Can we condemn a soldier for being a soldier? Sure, he saw the war through Hitler's glasses, but what other ones were there for him to wear except those of an absolute moral standard which we have yet to establish (on this thread) whether such a standard even exists or not. If we intend to make a distinction between good and evil we must have something to base that distinction on.

 

[jazzbass]

....wether or not you support the wars that America gets into, at least support our troops.

I'm confused how one can NOT support a war yet support the very troops that are waging that war. It just seems lke Nationalism--very dangerous. By that logic, the German citizenry who may not have supported Hitler during WWII, STILL should have supported thhe German troups.




jazzbass

 

[ArrowCollarMan]

Its their home. Its not that easy to just condem the entire German nation for their actions in WWII. Besides, the United States has comitted mass genocide: millions of Native Americans over the course of American history. No nation is pure good and no nation is pure evil.

I've often wondered what would have happened if Hitler had used his influence to do good rather than evil. What would Germany be like? You have to admit, he got stuff done. What came out of it was a tyranical war machine. I think I'll go with there are bad guys and their are bad-er guys. Politics are never one sided.

 

[airfrogusmc]

And what you have to understand is that the propaganda machine in Germany was saying if you weren't with us you were against us. You couldn't be a good German if you didn't support the nationalist efforts.

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” Hermann Goering

I think the every day German soldier(excluding the SS and the nazi party itself) was just doing his job for what he thought was god and country. If you've ever read Das Boot it gives an insight into how some of the officers felt about the nazis and Hitler. Remember it was his own generals that tried to assassinate him. Its not Germany that was all that evil it was the nazi party that by the way was freely elected. The everyday soldiers were just instruments of evil leadership. But by the time some of the laws were changed by the nazi party(after years in power) to protect them the nazi party it was to late for the common people to do anything about it.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

By that logic, the German citizenry who may not have supported Hitler during WWII, STILL should have supported thhe German troups.

The bravest of them did exactly that. Do a Google search on "Sophie Scholl".

.

 

[carebear]

Again, just because the individual soldiers and Germans weren't responsible for promulgating the Nazi ideology and actions they were supporting and defending it. In order to end the Nazi regime it was necessary but sad that those who supported and defended it be injured and killed.

The whole "well what could they do?" argument is garbage. "They" could have done what hundreds of Germans did, work against the regime. Whether by attempting to assasinate the leadership, by getting the truth of the horrors of the camps out to the general soldiery, by committing acts of sabotage, by smuggling Jews and others out of the country or even by taking up arms in revolution.

"But, but, they might DIE!"

So what? The men who formed this nation were willing to die to fight injustice, so were the civil rights activists in the 60's. Evil is not overcome by fleeing or hiding from it. It must be faced, even at risk of your own life, or you aren't much of a person.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Interesting but what about the national guard in this country that were sent in to enforce segregation in the 50s and 60s? Shouldn't they have resisted because of moral conviction? Also your not taking into consideration the career Garman soldiers that were in the military before the nazis came into power. I'm not saying they were right or they shouldn't have resisted I'm just saying that its the leaders that bear the brunt of the responsibility for bad policy that they have created not their tools (military).

 

[carebear]

Interesting but what about the national guard in this country that were sent in to enforce segregation in the 50s and 60s? Shouldn't they have resisted because of moral conviction? Also your not taking into consideration the career Garman soldiers that were in the military before the nazis came into power. I'm not saying they were right or they shouldn't have resisted I'm just saying that its the leaders that bear the brunt of the responsibility for bad policy that they have created not their tools (military).

That is an interesting question on its face because forced segregation, at the time, was (unlike murdering people in death camps or invading other countries unprovoked to take over their territory) legal at the time with its morality still open to question by many. Thus the choice for the Guardsmen would be to disobey a lawful order to enforce segregation because you felt it morally wrong. If those soldiers and their leaders felt segregation was immoral and the best method to resist it was to refuse to follow orders then, yes, they should have chosen to disobey the order and face the consequences. Just as peaceful activists and violent militants willingly faced jail time or vigilante action for resisting by other means.

Those German career military could have quit, could have mobilized their units and started a civil war, could have attempted (as some did) an assassination, could have done any number of things, as could the common German citizen. That they chose not to, for whatever reason, places the ultimate blame for the death and devastation of the war (including their own) squarely on their corporate shoulders.

Officers and soldiers (and citizens) are not the "tools" of their leadership, they are their masters. The responsibility (and consequences) for the actions of a government will always eventually fall upon the shoulders of the people. If those people are ignorant or lazy or stupid enough to willingly or unwillingly surrender enough power to the government that they lack effective means to remove said government from power they deserve the consequences.

The consequences for the individual may be fatal but there are worse things than dying.

 

[Mr Nick]

Taking a different course

I won't debate the pros and cons of the war but I would like to talk about my time in the military. I served in the Navy from 1978-83. No war, some threats of conflict. I would say that I faced death on several occassions by being on a 100' boat 250 miles out in the Bermuda triangle. I was young, hard-headed and arrogant. My time in the Navy taught be about the mission being more important than the individual. That it works better when we work as a team. That I don't have to like you to work with you. That I CAN DO many many things I never thought I could. There is a brotherhood of veterans that others can't understand or relate to. You get a sense of pride and patroitism on Veteran's Day and a humble thankfulness for the sacrifice of others on Memorial Day. You realize that many of the freedoms we have as civilians are taken for granted (people in the military do not have the same freedoms). As time goes by, I realize I learned so many more things as a result of my time in the military than I was awre of at the time. Responsibility, accountability, resourcefulness, respect (for myself and others), even how to deal with a boss who is clueless!lol I guess if I could sum it up, it turned me from a boy to a man. ARC, you will probably see the same thing happening to your family members. As with everything, there is good and bad. I read in a book one time to "think about what is lovely, pure and excellent". Sounds like a good idea!