"Hero" Woship (Opinions of the military servicemen)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-09-2012, 04:48 PM
RE: "Hero" Woship (Opinions of the military servicemen)
(18-09-2012 06:07 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(17-09-2012 02:37 PM)shiranl Wrote:  Dark Light and cheapthrillseaker, please read sections 4 and 5:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph...ive+a+fuck

Funny how "give a fuck" is actually defined as "I don't give a fuck".

He is right here... it's a matter of a phrase, those random English phrases don't often match up to what they're actually saying.

Just like the phrase, I could care less... which actually means. I COULDN'T care less.

It doesn't mean that, although people use it that way.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2012, 11:17 PM
RE: "Hero" Woship (Opinions of the military servicemen)
(18-09-2012 04:04 PM)shiranl Wrote:  
(18-09-2012 02:17 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Sorry, I didn't get my language lessons from theurbandictionary. You can argue about that all you want, or you can just explain what you meant.

Yeah, well...you don't exactley find the phrase "I give a fuck" in Oxford dictionary.
What I meant, is very simple- you can't take your past, and throw it away. I'm here, alive, because people had died for it. Some of them happen to be the entire battalion of my uncle, uncle that would've been dead now if he wasn't abroud when the war broke out.

And you want to tell me that I, and everybody who gets to the age of 18, need to take it, throw it away and take care for their own asses? It doesn't work that way. I have the obligation to take care to the next generation just like my dad's generation took care to main, way before I existed.

Your set of values works only where they don't need to be tested.

My "set of principles" would work anywhere; even where you are. If you feel the collective desire to defend your country then I'm not advocating that you shouldn't. I'm not telling you to become a tee-total pacifist. If the people of a country feel it is worthy of being defended you will find no shortage of soldiers. If however the people do not feel that their government are representing their interests well (which is what a government should do, as that is the only good reason for a government to exist.) then it deserves to fall.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2012, 04:35 AM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2012 05:16 AM by shiranl.)
RE: "Hero" Woship (Opinions of the military servicemen)
(18-09-2012 11:17 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(18-09-2012 04:04 PM)shiranl Wrote:  Yeah, well...you don't exactley find the phrase "I give a fuck" in Oxford dictionary.
What I meant, is very simple- you can't take your past, and throw it away. I'm here, alive, because people had died for it. Some of them happen to be the entire battalion of my uncle, uncle that would've been dead now if he wasn't abroud when the war broke out.

And you want to tell me that I, and everybody who gets to the age of 18, need to take it, throw it away and take care for their own asses? It doesn't work that way. I have the obligation to take care to the next generation just like my dad's generation took care to main, way before I existed.

Your set of values works only where they don't need to be tested.

My "set of principles" would work anywhere; even where you are. If you feel the collective desire to defend your country then I'm not advocating that you shouldn't. I'm not telling you to become a tee-total pacifist. If the people of a country feel it is worthy of being defended you will find no shortage of soldiers. If however the people do not feel that their government are representing their interests well (which is what a government should do, as that is the only good reason for a government to exist.) then it deserves to fall.


No, they won't. They work only where there's no matters of life & death. You see, my country can't risk it. We can't just eliminate the obligation of service and just hope that enough people will decide to serve anyway. Because it takes only a second of shortage of soldiers, and boom- a war breaks out. The Arabs look for seconds like that. This is how the 1973 war broke out- all the Arab countries decided to attack at Yom Kippur (which that year was also Shabbat), when all the country is at hold, including the army. Now, every Yom Kippur the IDF raises alertness because of that war. Which, unsurprisingly, is considered the worst war we had, even though we won (if we wouldn't won that war, I wouldn't be here and write to you).

You are right, we feel our government doesn't represent our interests. But we feel it in subjects like housing, merriage, work places, minimum wage, prices of food and fuel, and many other issues. Be sure a lot of people wil not vote for Bibi because of those issues. But not because the obligatory service. Or maybe, yes- because of the obligatory service. Bibi, because of political powers, doesn't want to include the ultra-orthodox Jews in an obligatory service, 86% of the public want to include them in the obligatory service. So not only we don't want to eliminate the obligatory service, we want to expend it.

Now, the obligatory service does something else other than make sure our military is big enough to protect Israel. The IDF operates a lot of programs for youth at risk. The service is their last chance. If not the obligatory of service, do you think they would join the military and take that last chance? Do you think that the IDF, as a professional military will want to recruit them? not only we will have a lot more criminals which will risk the public, they will be a burden on the tax payer money when they'll become prisioners. The IDF takes those people and rehabilitates them. So not only they are saved from criminal life, they also become a productive citizens who often succed more than the average person because they know how it is to be at the bottom.
And this is only one example for the social contribution of the obligatory service, I have many more.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2012, 08:54 PM
RE: "Hero" Woship (Opinions of the military servicemen)
(19-09-2012 04:35 AM)shiranl Wrote:  
(18-09-2012 11:17 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  My "set of principles" would work anywhere; even where you are. If you feel the collective desire to defend your country then I'm not advocating that you shouldn't. I'm not telling you to become a tee-total pacifist. If the people of a country feel it is worthy of being defended you will find no shortage of soldiers. If however the people do not feel that their government are representing their interests well (which is what a government should do, as that is the only good reason for a government to exist.) then it deserves to fall.


No, they won't. They work only where there's no matters of life & death. You see, my country can't risk it. We can't just eliminate the obligation of service and just hope that enough people will decide to serve anyway. Because it takes only a second of shortage of soldiers, and boom- a war breaks out. The Arabs look for seconds like that. This is how the 1973 war broke out- all the Arab countries decided to attack at Yom Kippur (which that year was also Shabbat), when all the country is at hold, including the army. Now, every Yom Kippur the IDF raises alertness because of that war. Which, unsurprisingly, is considered the worst war we had, even though we won (if we wouldn't won that war, I wouldn't be here and write to you).

You are right, we feel our government doesn't represent our interests. But we feel it in subjects like housing, merriage, work places, minimum wage, prices of food and fuel, and many other issues. Be sure a lot of people wil not vote for Bibi because of those issues. But not because the obligatory service. Or maybe, yes- because of the obligatory service. Bibi, because of political powers, doesn't want to include the ultra-orthodox Jews in an obligatory service, 86% of the public want to include them in the obligatory service. So not only we don't want to eliminate the obligatory service, we want to expend it.

Now, the obligatory service does something else other than make sure our military is big enough to protect Israel. The IDF operates a lot of programs for youth at risk. The service is their last chance. If not the obligatory of service, do you think they would join the military and take that last chance? Do you think that the IDF, as a professional military will want to recruit them? not only we will have a lot more criminals which will risk the public, they will be a burden on the tax payer money when they'll become prisioners. The IDF takes those people and rehabilitates them. So not only they are saved from criminal life, they also become a productive citizens who often succed more than the average person because they know how it is to be at the bottom.
And this is only one example for the social contribution of the obligatory service, I have many more.

Your view is based on a practicality to have the results you want to achieve. My view is based on the freedom of choice. You are not going to convince me otherwise, and I doubt I will bring you around to my way of thinking. I don't think we are going anywhere but in circles. Thanks for your opinion and argument though.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2012, 11:18 PM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2012 11:28 PM by shiranl.)
RE: "Hero" Woship (Opinions of the military servicemen)
(19-09-2012 08:54 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(19-09-2012 04:35 AM)shiranl Wrote:  No, they won't. They work only where there's no matters of life & death. You see, my country can't risk it. We can't just eliminate the obligation of service and just hope that enough people will decide to serve anyway. Because it takes only a second of shortage of soldiers, and boom- a war breaks out. The Arabs look for seconds like that. This is how the 1973 war broke out- all the Arab countries decided to attack at Yom Kippur (which that year was also Shabbat), when all the country is at hold, including the army. Now, every Yom Kippur the IDF raises alertness because of that war. Which, unsurprisingly, is considered the worst war we had, even though we won (if we wouldn't won that war, I wouldn't be here and write to you).

You are right, we feel our government doesn't represent our interests. But we feel it in subjects like housing, merriage, work places, minimum wage, prices of food and fuel, and many other issues. Be sure a lot of people wil not vote for Bibi because of those issues. But not because the obligatory service. Or maybe, yes- because of the obligatory service. Bibi, because of political powers, doesn't want to include the ultra-orthodox Jews in an obligatory service, 86% of the public want to include them in the obligatory service. So not only we don't want to eliminate the obligatory service, we want to expend it.

Now, the obligatory service does something else other than make sure our military is big enough to protect Israel. The IDF operates a lot of programs for youth at risk. The service is their last chance. If not the obligatory of service, do you think they would join the military and take that last chance? Do you think that the IDF, as a professional military will want to recruit them? not only we will have a lot more criminals which will risk the public, they will be a burden on the tax payer money when they'll become prisioners. The IDF takes those people and rehabilitates them. So not only they are saved from criminal life, they also become a productive citizens who often succed more than the average person because they know how it is to be at the bottom.
And this is only one example for the social contribution of the obligatory service, I have many more.

Your view is based on a practicality to have the results you want to achieve. My view is based on the freedom of choice. You are not going to convince me otherwise, and I doubt I will bring you around to my way of thinking. I don't think we are going anywhere but in circles. Thanks for your opinion and argument though.

No, my view is based upon past experiences (AKA 1973 war) and present observation (AKA social contribution of the obligatory service, 86% of the public want to expend the law of obligatory service), and some statistics. Right now the IDF has about 100,000 active soldiers and about 400,000 more from reserve. It is nothing. So cutting it off more?
Your view is based on something that remainds me a religious view (free choice? really? this is the best term you could find?) and artificial values that don't work in the real world, and if they do work- they are only causing more death.
So, really- free choice versus my life? Even you will choose your life if you HAD to choose. The problem- you don't have to choose, and you can't even imagine that in the near future you will have to choose, and you can't understand that not everyone have the luxury of not having to choose.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2012, 12:11 AM
RE: "Hero" Woship (Opinions of the military servicemen)
(19-09-2012 11:18 PM)shiranl Wrote:  
(19-09-2012 08:54 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Your view is based on a practicality to have the results you want to achieve. My view is based on the freedom of choice. You are not going to convince me otherwise, and I doubt I will bring you around to my way of thinking. I don't think we are going anywhere but in circles. Thanks for your opinion and argument though.

No, my view is based upon past experiences (AKA 1973 war) and present observation (AKA social contribution of the obligatory service, 86% of the public want to expend the law of obligatory service), and some statistics. Right now the IDF has about 100,000 active soldiers and about 400,000 more from reserve. It is nothing. So cutting it off more?
Your view is based on something that remainds me a religious view (free choice? really? this is the best term you could find?) and artificial values that don't work in the real world, and if they do work- they are only causing more death.
So, really- free choice versus my life? Even you will choose your life if you HAD to choose. The problem- you don't have to choose, and you can't even imagine that in the near future you will have to choose, and you can't understand that not everyone have the luxury of not having to choose.

I really DON'T give a fuck if you don't like the phrase I chose. Free choice is free choice. Giving people the option of whether they want to serve or not can may increase deaths but it doesn't necessarily increase deaths, it can prevent it. In your land you feel that is lessens the death toll, and it may very well do that, but forcing people to serve against their will is still immoral. If I am a pacifist you have no moral authority to force me to choose . This is why we consider it immoral to do do things to peoples bodies without their consent, even if it may benefit society. Furthermore I did have to choose, and I chose to serve. Others also had to chose, and they chose not to. Free choice isn't merely a luxury, it is a natural right.

Like I said before, you aren't going to convince me otherwise, I am not going to convince you otherwise so this conversation is not doing anyone any good.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2012, 02:50 AM
RE: "Hero" Woship (Opinions of the military servicemen)
(20-09-2012 12:11 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  I really DON'T give a fuck if you don't like the phrase I chose. Free choice is free choice. Giving people the option of whether they want to serve or not can may increase deaths but it doesn't necessarily increase deaths, it can prevent it. In your land you feel that is lessens the death toll , and it may very well do that, but forcing people to serve against their will is still immoral. If I am a pacifist you have no moral authority to force me to choose . This is why we consider it immoral to do do things to peoples bodies without their consent, even if it may benefit society. Furthermore I did have to choose, and I chose to serve. Others also had to chose, and they chose not to. Free choice isn't merely a luxury, it is a natural right.

Like I said before, you aren't going to convince me otherwise, I am not going to convince you otherwise so this conversation is not doing anyone any good.

I don't "feel". I know, there's a big difference.
And this is what I wanted you to pay attention to- in my land, in my life, we need the obligatory service in order to keep also a natural right- living with security. The obligatory service is the means we MUST take in order to defend the natural right of living with security of the rest of the citizens.

You choose between not serving and serving. the options I was talking about were free choice to serve or not versus living. Because in my country, if we select the first one (free choice whether to serve or not) we're automaticly sentence death upon ourselves and our country will seize to exist.

btw, who put you to decide that "free choice" is natural right?
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid=172935
this is the UN human rights declaration, natural rights are described in articles 3-21. Non of them is "every human has the right of free choice to serve or not his country". The right to live with security is the first one, and, how interesting, the last one (21) section 2 is "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government" the will of 86% of the public is to continue with the obligatory service and, more over, to expend it.

If you declare a pacifict, by the way, you are not recruited (of course, they are checking it out- your facebook, organizations you are member in, etc, etc...)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2012, 09:27 AM (This post was last modified: 21-09-2012 02:36 PM by Diablo666.)
RE: "Hero" Woship (Opinions of the military servicemen)
(20-09-2012 12:11 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(19-09-2012 11:18 PM)shiranl Wrote:  No, my view is based upon past experiences (AKA 1973 war) and present observation (AKA social contribution of the obligatory service, 86% of the public want to expend the law of obligatory service), and some statistics. Right now the IDF has about 100,000 active soldiers and about 400,000 more from reserve. It is nothing. So cutting it off more?
Your view is based on something that remainds me a religious view (free choice? really? this is the best term you could find?) and artificial values that don't work in the real world, and if they do work- they are only causing more death.
So, really- free choice versus my life? Even you will choose your life if you HAD to choose. The problem- you don't have to choose, and you can't even imagine that in the near future you will have to choose, and you can't understand that not everyone have the luxury of not having to choose.

I really DON'T give a fuck if you don't like the phrase I chose. Free choice is free choice. Giving people the option of whether they want to serve or not can may increase deaths but it doesn't necessarily increase deaths, it can prevent it. In your land you feel that is lessens the death toll, and it may very well do that, but forcing people to serve against their will is still immoral. If I am a pacifist you have no moral authority to force me to choose . This is why we consider it immoral to do do things to peoples bodies without their consent, even if it may benefit society. Furthermore I did have to choose, and I chose to serve. Others also had to chose, and they chose not to. Free choice isn't merely a luxury, it is a natural right.

Like I said before, you aren't going to convince me otherwise, I am not going to convince you otherwise so this conversation is not doing anyone any good.

So much fail within you...none of the shit you said made any sense.
We have something called the draft. We do all kinds of nasty things to people for the good of society, or even the good of the few atm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2012, 11:57 AM
RE: "Hero" Woship (Opinions of the military servicemen)
Atheist in a foxhole makes a great point. American servicemen are not required to obey illegal orders or tolerate unethical behavior. Sadly, bad people can find their way into any profession, which is how I have always thought of military service ( a profession). The obvious differance is the opportunity for extrodinary acts of bravery and sacrifice not found in other professions. Most "heroes" with whom I have had the pleasure to serve with, dislike the term ,and do what they do because the situation demands it. I believe admiration is a more approriate term than hero worship. In my experience, camaraderie is a bigger motivator than any other in situations requiring heroic behavior. Some of these guys deserve a great amount of admiration.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Big Al's post
30-09-2012, 12:52 AM
RE: "Hero" Woship (Opinions of the military servicemen)
(11-09-2012 04:48 AM)nach_in Wrote:  Soldiers in a sense forfeit their moral autonomy when they join the military, they have to follow orders and no matter how immoral those orders are they have to obey. That forfeit is what I think makes soldiers not worthy of the adjective "hero", a hero requires moral autonomy in my opinion.

Thankfully, the US military isn't like the Argentinian Military apparently. The US Military has a very strict code of conduct and a set of laws called the Uniform Code of Military Justice which we have to follow on top of all the normal every day laws that all US citizens follow. There are rules about what an officer can order someone to do and cannot order someone to do and if my Commander gives me an unlawful order it is my duty NOT to follow it. I have the option to ignore any order an officer gives me if I don't think its a lawful order. I just better hope I'm right. lol

With that being said, I have people say thank you for your service to me on a daily basis. I typically just say thank you and move on. In my 15 years in the Air Force I have been involved in exactly one firefight which happened while I was deployed supporting a joint special operations mission in Afghanistan. At the time it seemed like it took about 15 minutes but in reality I had time to fire off 6 rounds hitting 4 targets and we were back in our vehicle and getting the heck out of dodge. It didn't scar me, I don't wake up in a cold sweat or have nightmares and I can't still see the faces of the 4 people I shot. I went out on a peaceful meet and greet with 3 Green Berets and when we stepped out of our vehicle a group of people tried to ambush us. They shot at us, we returned fire. If they hadn't shot at us we would have gone into the building, met with the guy we were there to meet and that village would have a new school and clean drinking water right now. I guess I'm weird because it doesn't bother me to talk about what happened that day. I've deployed to the middle east 7 times. I've been shot at and I've shot back. I've lived through rocket and mortar attacks and I've had mortars bounce off the Aircraft parking ramp I was working on and skid to a halt INSIDE the bunker I'm supposed to take cover in without exploding. I've seen planes come back from a mission to air drop food and water to remote villages with holes in them from the idiots on the ground (who were expecting the shipment) shooting at them. But the majority of the people I have talked to from the countries that I've been to have appreciated the fact that we were there and trying to help. I have spent a LOT of time working directly with both Iraqi and Afghani civilians and military and not a single one has ever told me "I wish the US would just leave my country"

It would be interesting though to suddenly just up and pull all the American troops back from around the world, shut down our bases in other countries and bring them all home and just watch as the rest of the world falls apart. American military forces are a HUGE stabilizing force in regions around the world where craziness would erupt the moment our last boot left the ground. I can guarantee if we pulled all of our troops out of the middle east within 5 years someone over there would be begging us to come help them take their country back from the invaders that went in to fill the vacuum we left behind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SharkByte's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: