One of the things I find amusing...
Is the presumption that soldiers are trigger-happy. I see it all the time, most recently on John's blog.
Soldiers, the ones who have to deal with the actual consequences of war and pulling the trigger, aren't the ones who are trigger-happy. Nope, it's the ones who Monday-morning-quarterback the soldiers; those corpulent masses who sneer down their noses at the men and women in the mud, the men and women who weigh the decision to pull the trigger pretty heavily, even though it may not be at that exact moment, those are the ones who are trigger-happy.
If anything, the military wants, when all is said and done and we are committed, to go in and get our job done quickly and with as few casualties as possible. We're prepared, professional and lethal, and it's what we should be. Men or women who pull the trigger to watch people die aren't soldiers or professionals, they're psychotic. There's a difference, but I think it may be lost on some folx.
Here are some quotes that I find interesting. I'll start with the most offensive thing I think I've ever read.
It seems like such a terrible shame that innocent civilians have to get hurt in wars, otherwise combat would be such a wonderfully healthy way to rid the human race of unneeded trash. ~Fred Woodworth
(If you're interested, Fred Woodworth is an anarchist. Recently he's had to undergo some major surgery and bills are piling up. I'm pretty tempted to send him a donation, and make sure that he knows it's from that unneeded trash. If you're so inclined, do the same.)
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
--John Stewart Mill--
War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over.
--William Tecumseh Sherman--
Army: A body of men assembled to rectify the mistakes of the diplomats.
--Josephus Daniels--
Diplomats are just as essential in starting a war as soldiers are in finishing it.
--Will Rogers--
Being in the army is like being in the Boy Scouts, except that the Boy Scouts have adult supervision.
--Blake Clark--
Discipline is simply the art of making the soldiers fear their officers more than the enemy.
--Helvetius--
Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier.
--Samuel Johnson--
posted by Soldier Grrrl @ 12:21 PM
7 Comments:
Nice selection of quotes.
As someone who has gotten called back into uniform once, from being a diplomat to serving in OIF1, they have particular resonnance.
Linked at:
http://www.oldwardogs.us/2006/09/oh_yeah.html
This may be just a decurion's statement, but, taken at face value,
"To wit, Israel should nuke Iran." sounds about as trigger happy as it gets.
One would hope (and expect) that soldiers, who put themselves in harm's way so that others don't have to, think about the consequences before they act
- even if they don't think about the consequences before they speak
(the latter may cost them a stripe or two, while the former will get them killed).
You judge how seriously one should take this statement, and "Personally, I don't think the Muslims would get that threat unless it was demonstrated in a way that no one could mistake. But that's coming back to the idea of nuking Iran now."
As for folx who sneer down their noses at the men and women in the mud, here's another particularly offensive example.
I don't know to what extent I would want to agree with this statement;
in any case, if a "near genius" mind (saith a source I consider reliablesaurus) seems to start turning against itself, it might make sense to provide it food for thought rather than sneering and saying that the spinal cord would suffice, anyway. After all, a mind is a terrible thing to waste, let alone the rest of the man.
CMAD- I'm not going to argue that sometimes my darling husband gets a bit frustrated with the pussyfooting around wrt to having to make sure that we honor some barbarian culture's values while still trying to make sure they don't destroy Western Civilization in the meantime.
One of the problems with dealing with the Middle East that you either don't or won't understand is that while this statement may sound bloodthirsty- You judge how seriously one should take this statement, and "Personally, I don't think the Muslims would get that threat unless it was demonstrated in a way that no one could mistake. But that's coming back to the idea of nuking Iran now." - it is nothing but the truth. That part of the world cares nothing for delicacy, or for restraint.
It only cares for your ability to beat the snot out of it long enough to make your point. It *is* going to take an object lesson in nuclear radiation to make Iran sit up and listen to the rest of the world and I'm afraid that Israel will be the ones that will have to step up to the role of teacher.
When that day comes, I pray God has mercy on our collective souls.
That part of the world cares nothing for delicacy, or for restraint.
You know, I thought this about the Middle West in the USA, too ... until I looked a little closer.
Serious question, and I don't want to prove you wrong here:
You write:
"It only cares for your ability to beat the snot out of it long enough to make your point.", where "it" means "that part of the world", i.e., "it" actually means some people in that part of the world.
Undoubtedly, there are other people there, too, who care for delicacy and restraint.
Proof: Quite a few Iranians have gone abroad, to Europe or the USA, both before and after the Islamic Revolution. From direct, personal experience, I know that a few of them care for delicacy and restraint. Not everybody who wants to leave Iran to live elsewhere is able to do so, so some of the Iranians who care for restraint are still there.
Now when you describe "that part of the world", you don't count the people who care for civilization and restraint, but only those who are hostile towards Western civilization.
You may have a good reason (even one or more of several good reasons) to do so, but your reason is not immediately obvious.
[One possible reason: You got word about what happened at the Bosporus in 1453. But (excuse my Greek) that word is old.]
That part of the world cares nothing for delicacy, or for restraint.
You know, I thought this about the Middle West in the USA, too ... until I looked a little closer.
No. In the Midwest of the US, we don't make our points by strapping bombs on ourselves and wandering up to hospitals and cafes. We don't shoot hundreds of people who are trying to stand up for a better society and leave them rotting in soccer stadiums or facedown in lakes.
When something does happen, such as the OKC bombing, most folx are shocked and horrified and we usually manage to come together to offer help, shoulders and aid. McVeigh was a Christian man, and people from Christian churches stood up and said that Christians don't *do* this. Pagans stood up and said that Christians don't do this.
When 9/11 happened, how many thousands of people came together, from across a country big enough to swallow Europe, to help dig?
Serious question, and I don't want to prove you wrong here:
You write:
"It only cares for your ability to beat the snot out of it long enough to make your point.", where "it" means "that part of the world", i.e., "it" actually means some people in that part of the world.
Undoubtedly, there are other people there, too, who care for delicacy and restraint.
Then where are they? Why aren't they getting out there and making their presence known? Yes, a thousand men are strong, but 10,000 are stronger and if those 10,000 who care for delicacy and restraint aren't doing anything to restrain their countrymen, then what good does it do?
Proof: Quite a few Iranians have gone abroad, to Europe or the USA, both before and after the Islamic Revolution. From direct, personal experience, I know that a few of them care for delicacy and restraint. Not everybody who wants to leave Iran to live elsewhere is able to do so, so some of the Iranians who care for restraint are still there.
The problem is that the people in power don't care for restraint. (Yeah, go ahead and insert your own comment about Bush in here, since I'm relatively sure that you'll draw a parallel. Originality ain't exactly what I'm expecting.)
Now when you describe "that part of the world", you don't count the people who care for civilization and restraint, but only those who are hostile towards Western civilization.
Um yeah, 'cause they're the ones who seem to be making the most noise.
Honestly, after 9/11 I saw a few moderately miffed statements from Islamic groups across the globe, but a hell of a lot more stating that we'd brought it on ourselves and that if we'd just have realized how horrible we are then maybe, maybe maybe the attack wouldn't have happened.
Nothing really horribly condemning though, at least from the ME.
You may have a good reason (even one or more of several good reasons) to do so, but your reason is not immediately obvious.
I happen to think that militant Islam is a cancer that will eat at the West until it is either irradicated or consumes us and plunges us into another Dark Ages. I happen to think that the overiding goal for the idiot "jihadi" groups is to spread an Islamic Caliphate over the world, killing the infidels and subjecting those who don't die or convert to dhimmitude. I think that they want to stop any and all progress towards a better world. Granted, I'm sure that someone's going to say that it's possible to be a moderate Muslim, and I'm sure that it is possible, but the suras certainly don't seem to be all kindness and sweetness.
Yes, yes yes. The Old Testament isn't exactly lovey-dovey either. I know. Yes, God gets medieval on some folx and wrath and the like are really hip, but the New Testament doesn't necessarily advocate killing those who won't convert or taxing the shit out of them. The NT is the New Covenant with God, and since we accept the New Covenant, the OT rules, such as those found in Deuteronomy aren't applicable. From what I remember of the NT, and I am NO theologian and first among sinners, Jesus doesn't command his followers to kill the unbelievers or the humiliate them.
As for my reason for pretty relatively sure that the area doesn't understand tact? Yeah, that would be some asshole driving a VBIED up to a group of kids (who were clustered around Soldiers giving out candy) and detonating it. He could have hit the patrol earlier, but CHOSE TO GO INTO THE CROWD OF KIDS. The VBIED detonated outside a hospital, the men lined up in rows and shot because they're a different damned sect.
[One possible reason: You got word about what happened at the Bosporus in 1453. But (excuse my Greek) that word is old.]
Yeah. Go to the ME and ask about something that happened 900 years ago. They'll tell you about it like it was yesterday. As for remembering what happened 650 years ago? After what I saw in Iraq, it would happen again today.
May God have mercy on my soul.
The choice to drive the vehicle based improvised explosive device [did I guess correctly?] into a crowd of kids makes perfect sense, in the sick logic of a suicide bomber. First and foremost, you want to keep anyone who might want to go out in the street to restrain others from being violent too terrorized to make themselves visible.
Terrorists preemptively want to make any alternative to sectarian violence impossible.
One can't, in an intellectually honest way, claim that the track record of the United States of America is anywhere near as bad as the record of Middle Eastern countries.
What is it that, so far, keeps America immune from militant, violent religious fundamentalism?
I write "religious" instead of "Islamic", because the difference between Islam and Christianity can't be decisive, as Brig.Gen. PITA [if he is who I think he is] can confirm first hand. But there is something that makes the difference.
I happen to agree that the world is threatened by a cancer that will eat at free societies, or infect them so that free societies will destroy themselves from the inside, if it is not contained. I see the danger of us falling into Dark Ages of religious war, too (1618-1648 comes to my mind).
So, how can the Dark Ages be avoided? Depositing a SiO2 passivation layer on the Middle East doesn't seem to be a feasible solution.
Post a Comment
<< Home