[pooka]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
You didn't fight for your freedom?

DAMN! We almost had it, Face. So freakin' close. Peace in the Hillbilly East was within our grasp. I had visions of theolein & spliff... throwing back a case of Old Milwaukee... stripping off their clothes... and comparing their impressive collection of scares. Then you had to come in and stir **** up. SPPPPOOOOOOOOOOOON! SPPPPOOOON, I SAY!

I've been trying to tell you guys that Australia is the true enemy of the world.

[Spliffdaddy]

so close.

*cleans his shotgun*

[Sherwin]

Back on topic...

"So, I joined the army to sit around the barracks kicking back all day. Easy life and all that. Saves getting a proper job, etc., etc.. And now you want me to kill people? And see dead people? Nobody ever told me that before I joined!"

[Dudaev's Corpse]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Back on topic...

"So, I joined the army to sit around the barracks kicking back all day. Easy life and all that. Saves getting a proper job, etc., etc.. And now you want me to kill people? And see dead people? Nobody ever told me that before I joined!"

where'd you get that from?

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Dudaev's Corpse:
where'd you get that from?

The thread (or at least the original post) is about soldiers coming back from war and suffering mental trauma due to what they've seen there, right? Let's all feel sorry for the soldiers who've seen horrendous things, right?

Like, umm, what did they expect they'd be seeing when they signed up?

I'm just reminded of a recent case here in the UK where a female soldier successfully sued the MoD for sex discrimination because she didn't want to go abroad and they expected her to. Like, she knew that as a soldier she'd have to go abroad when she signed up. Going off to foreign lands to fight wars is what soldiers do and all that.

So how can a soldier be a victim? Did they expect to be sitting in their barracks back home at base for their entire service? Did they expect to not see dead/dismembered people?

[Dudaev's Corpse]

soldiers aren't victims unless their government abuses them physically, mentally, or conducts damaging, disfiguring, or dehabilitating experiments on them. And war doesn't count--it's your job, and you know full well it can get ugly. UK and US soldiers aren't drafted anymore. The poor germans, russians, and third-world conscripts are, however.

[theolein]

Originally posted by pooka:
DAMN! We almost had it, Face. So freakin' close. Peace in the Hillbilly East was within our grasp. I had visions of theolein & spliff... throwing back a case of Old Milwaukee... stripping off their clothes... and comparing their impressive collection of scares. Then you had to come in and stir **** up. SPPPPOOOOOOOOOOOON! SPPPPOOOON, I SAY!

I've been trying to tell you guys that Australia is the true enemy of the world.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Like, umm, what did they expect they'd be seeing when they signed up?

So how can a soldier be a victim? Did they expect to be sitting in their barracks back home at base for their entire service? Did they expect to not see dead/dismembered people?

Actually, before the Cold War ended, being a soldier basically meant a rigorous, but pretty good life, with job security etc.

Apparently, a number of recruits over the years signed up because they figured the chances of ever seeing combat were pretty small. This is true for Germany, and I'm sure it's true for other countries, as well.

Doesn't mean that the woman you mention has an argument, but four years ago, who would've expected a labour government to start bombing random countries, unprovoked?

-s*

[theolein]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
The thread (or at least the original post) is about soldiers coming back from war and suffering mental trauma due to what they've seen there, right? Let's all feel sorry for the soldiers who've seen horrendous things, right?

Like, umm, what did they expect they'd be seeing when they signed up?

I'm just reminded of a recent case here in the UK where a female soldier successfully sued the MoD for sex discrimination because she didn't want to go abroad and they expected her to. Like, she knew that as a soldier she'd have to go abroad when she signed up. Going off to foreign lands to fight wars is what soldiers do and all that.

So how can a soldier be a victim? Did they expect to be sitting in their barracks back home at base for their entire service? Did they expect to not see dead/dismembered people?

The topic wasn't about soldiers having to expect getting shot up, bombed and crippled for life etc. It was simply about their difficulties after having been wounded or in war.

It *should* obviously be a soldiers personal responsibility to know what they're getting themselves into when they join the military. Just as obviously, it is impossible to know what war and it's consequences are really like until you're actually in that situation. You are lying to yourself, me and everyone else here if you believe differently. Is that hard arse attitude an excuse to not have to have empathy with others?

In fact that's something I've been wondering about for quite a while now: Is the difference between conservative and liberal a question of empathy? I know that conservatives, in general, claim that everyone is responsible for their own destiny and lives, something that I mostly, but not completely agree with, but it also seems to me, judging from reactions to a very simple story about wounded soldiers, that some conservatives will go to any lengths to avoid feelings of empathy with others.

I was a bit astounded that there would be so much anger and denial from the conservative crowd here, while posting this story about wounded soldiers from their own army that they are always championing voiciferously.

I knew a man who had been a french foreign legionaire. He had been in Indochina in th 50's and was a really hard case. He was as conservative as they come and would ridicule any form of human weakness he came across. In the end he died of brain and liver cancer. But in the year when he was dying of cancer, this man who had been previously such a harda$$ was forced to be confronted with physical weakness for the first time in his life. It was in that time that he complained that no one felt sorry for him and that no one understood his pain.

[gadster]

Originally posted by Dudaev's Corpse:
soldiers aren't victims unless their government abuses them physically, mentally, or conducts damaging, disfiguring, or dehabilitating experiments on them. And war doesn't count--it's your job, and you know full well it can get ugly. UK and US soldiers aren't drafted anymore. The poor germans, russians, and third-world conscripts are, however.

Correct me if I am wrong. theo, but I thought the whole purpose of this thread was to focus on the individuals who are tasked with prosecuting war on another bunch of individuals who are tasked with the defence.

Pink Floyd: "the Generals sat, as the lines on the map, moved from side to side"

I have a subversive idea. All soldiers, worldwide, go on strike, NOW. Demand ridiculous amounts of pay. That would be an interesting scenario. No? A soldiers Union. I'd like to see that.

[gadster]

Originally posted by theolein:
Is the difference between conservative and liberal a question of empathy?

Yep. Empathy is the exact opposite of envy. For the 'religious', it's "But there for the Grace of God, go I". I think you have hit the nail on the head there, theo. However, at this juncture, I think it's more important that we focus on what we all have in common. National boundaries, religious demarcation disputes, these things are unimportant in the longer term.

So here we are, Homo sapiens, eking out a fairly comfortable lifestyle. Well some of us are. Funnily enough, the 'fun' threshold is pretty low. Bad news for Disney.

The differences between us are obvious and irrelevant. The similarities are what is important. Jew, Muslim, KKK member, all they want is LOVE and ACCEPTANCE.

At the end of the day, that's all anyone ever wanted. Even Hitler.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by gadster:
I have a subversive idea. All soldiers, worldwide, go on strike, NOW. Demand ridiculous amounts of pay. That would be an interesting scenario. No? A soldiers Union. I'd like to see that.

Not subversive enough, probably: it would be better if they refused to "serve" at all (of course, with the understanding that self-defense should be a collective matter, and only when there is no other option; and worldwide human solidarity the glue to avoid the caprices of all kinds of dictators). But this would require a mentality change in "our" populace - almost impossible as long as today's media circus is in charge of "education"...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by theolein:
In fact that's something I've been wondering about for quite a while now: Is the difference between conservative and liberal a question of empathy? I know that conservatives, in general, claim that everyone is responsible for their own destiny and lives, something that I mostly, but not completely agree with, but it also seems to me, judging from reactions to a very simple story about wounded soldiers, that some conservatives will go to any lengths to avoid feelings of empathy with others.

I was a bit astounded that there would be so much anger and denial from the conservative crowd here, while posting this story about wounded soldiers from their own army that they are always championing voiciferously.

excellent post and observation.

I've thought about this a lot, off and on over the years and have come to a similar conclusion. I think it might be to any one or all of the following factors:

1. SUPERSTITION: just as the lepers in olden times were superstitiously shunned for fear of catching leprosy, so today do conservatives shun anyone of need (social programs) as a superstitious chant against falling on hard times themselves. If they can demonize and ostracize those less fortunate, they on some level also think to banish the possibility of being in their shoes. "there but for the grace of God go I" is not a favorite saying of theirs.
Instead, they feel the less fortunate deserve their fate or bring it upon themselves, or are maliciously coercing entitlements (one of the favorite conservative myths is the "rampant cheating welfare mothers spitting out babies just to get assistance".) As long as others can be characterized in their own minds as evil, lazy, or deserving of hardship, then they can feel safe because they mentally draw a line around themselves, a superstitious protective circle -- "Since *I* am not lazy or evil or deserving of hardship, like these others, then I will not suffer their fate"
2. SELF-ABSORPTION: I stop short of saying "selfish" because I think conservatives will donate generously to a cause they support, like political candidates etc. But I think instead they are self-absorbed. They like to think everyone thinks like they do. And anyone who does not, is not included in the nimbus of "people who matter, like us". Only the people within the subset of their beliefs is worthy of regard, influence or government assistance. So, for example, They will complain about people on welfare but approve of government bailouts for badly run corporations. Because CEOs and upper managment belong in their inner circle. Union members do not, for example. And, they view themselves as the American Aristocracy, and the rest of the country are the political peasants.
3. "I'VE GOT MINE, SCR@W YOU". kind of combines 1 and 2 in an unpleasant way. I find this one very prevalent. One the best examples was about a year ago another macNN was bragging about being cruel to a homeless person, actually taking pride and pleasure in harrassing a panhandler.
I could go on, but you get the gist. I also don't think this applies to every conservative, obviously, but it certainly does apply to many. So much so that the term "compassionate conservative" had to be coined to differentiate Bush from the rest of the compassionless conservatives, I presume. Also, if you'll notice, their choice of insults are very telling in what they consider objectionable: "bleeding heart" is a way of saying anyone who has compassion or empathy for someone other than themselves must be a bad thing...by implication they view having no compassion as an ideal, I suppose a concrete heart would be best.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by gadster:
I have a subversive idea. All soldiers, worldwide, go on strike, NOW. Demand ridiculous amounts of pay. That would be an interesting scenario. No? A soldiers Union. I'd like to see that.

Reminds me of Lysistrata by Aristophanes. In it, all the women boycott sex until the men stop having wars.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Reminds me of Lysistrata by Aristophanes. In it, all the women boycott sex until the men stop having wars.

... Anyway, there indeed are some anti-militarist graphics which tend towards a "unite in a union" way of thinking - for example, this one:



(Yes, I know that there is - currently - no draft in the US, and that "serving" is "voluntary".)

The problem is that unions rarely are "subversive" in themselves: rather, they tend to be reformist (which is also the main reason of their origin: the betterment of current working conditions and salaries). So, a soldiers' union could certainly be a good thing (maybe it already exists, somewhere?), but it won't certainly remove the causes of war, militarism, imperialism, and so on...

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by theolein:
The topic wasn't about soldiers having to expect getting shot up, bombed and crippled for life etc. It was simply about their difficulties after having been wounded or in war.

It *should* obviously be a soldiers personal responsibility to know what they're getting themselves into when they join the military. Just as obviously, it is impossible to know what war and it's consequences are really like until you're actually in that situation. You are lying to yourself, me and everyone else here if you believe differently. Is that hard arse attitude an excuse to not have to have empathy with others?

No, it's a hard arse attitude that's sick of people who are paid to do a job moaning about that job.

There's a lot of it going about these days. For example, there's some cases of police officers here suing for "after-effects" of having seen train and car crashes, etc. Like, who did they think sorts out the crashes when they occur? The fairies?

Then we have members of the army moaning that they've got to go abroad and kill people.

An RAF officer even got a court martial for refusing to go to Iraq because he didn't want to hurt people (yes, really).

What next? The ambulance service moaning that they've got to look at blood? Care home staff moaning that they've got to clean up poop?

It's a simple as this: I pay my taxes for those people to do a job. I expect them to do that job without my having to pay more taxes for their "compensation" claim.

As Spheric pointed out, a lot of people joined up because they thought they'd get an easy ride, thought they'd never see combat. Well hey, combat is what I pay them for, not sitting around in the barracks polishing shoes. It's the sole reason for the existence of the job.

I have empathy all right. Just not with people who're going to try to claim compensation for doing the job which I've already paid them to do.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Reminds me of Lysistrata by Aristophanes. In it, all the women boycott sex until the men stop having wars.

Heh. In the version by the *marvellous* German comic book author Ralf K�nig, the soldiers all end up turning gay ("just temporarily", of course), and the women end up needing to pull the hardcore feminist card to end the war.

Great book.



-s*

[theolein]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
No, it's a hard arse attitude that's sick of people who are paid to do a job moaning about that job.

There's a lot of it going about these days. For example, there's some cases of police officers here suing for "after-effects" of having seen train and car crashes, etc. Like, who did they think sorts out the crashes when they occur? The fairies?

Then we have members of the army moaning that they've got to go abroad and kill people.

An RAF officer even got a court martial for refusing to go to Iraq because he didn't want to hurt people (yes, really).

What next? The ambulance service moaning that they've got to look at blood? Care home staff moaning that they've got to clean up poop?

It's a simple as this: I pay my taxes for those people to do a job. I expect them to do that job without my having to pay more taxes for their "compensation" claim.

As Spheric pointed out, a lot of people joined up because they thought they'd get an easy ride, thought they'd never see combat. Well hey, combat is what I pay them for, not sitting around in the barracks polishing shoes. It's the sole reason for the existence of the job.

I have empathy all right. Just not with people who're going to try to claim compensation for doing the job which I've already paid them to do.

If anyone were actually interested in your opinion because you have to pay your taxes, then things would be different in the UK (and elsewhere). They aren't so they aren't. Paying your taxes is considered a duty in the UK, and in fact everywhere for that matter. No one sees you as having employed anyone or having any say in what is done with your taxes. The only time when you can actually have any say is during an election.

In any case, Sherwin, the original post was about the mental and physical wounds of soldiers AFTER having been in war, not before joining up. It was NOT about soldiers deserting or complaining about compensation or even complaining about having been in Iraq. The original article linked to on the NYT site, was about soldiers who were mostly proud to have done their duty.

Did you even read it?

[Sven G]

... And this picture maybe gives us an eloquent representation of the very causes of war and all related diseases (of course, replace capitalism with any other dominant power system in any historical age, and don't take it too literally - but it indeed gets the point, IMHO):



Sadly, this still seems to be today's world - maybe more from a psychological oppression point of view, but anyway...

[thunderous_funker]

You know how America recruits people into it's volunteer army?

Socialism.

[lil'babykitten]

On a related note,

Students Struggle as Parents Serve in Iraq

Extract:

The crowded halls look and sound like those of almost any American school - but Robert M Shoemaker High School in Killeen Texas is not just any school.

It sits right next to Fort Hood, America's largest army base.

Of the more than 2,000 students here, more than half have parents or relations who are involved in operations in Iraq.

The students are under strain of absent parents, and some mourn parents who will never come home.

....

Shoemaker High School Principal Nelda Howton says the impact on the students is clear.

"Tempers are short," she says, adding, "Students who normally have never been in trouble might fly off the handle and get into an altercation with another student."

Students' grades have dropped, and more often than not, when they see a student whose grades have dropped across the board, that student has a parent who has deployed, she said.

"They just aren't thinking about school," she says.

Some of the children are from single-parent homes, and have seen that lone parent head for Iraq. The older children often end up at home alone.

Others are taken in by relations or guardians, like 14-year-old twins Laqwon and Raqwon Perryman.