A military salute is a sign of respect. To stand up and salute a fallen soldier is to respect the sacrifice that that soldier made on behalf of his country and it's values.
The soldier made the ultimate sacrifice - by choice. Worthy of respect. Soldiers of different time periods and different cultures willingly die for what they really believe in, and regardless of their cause it's the act of willful sacrifice that warrents respect from me. I salute them all, especially those American soldiers that have given their lives all through history so that WE can have the freedom to even disreprect them as some people on Gather frequently do.
The same thing our's are - sacrificing for what THEY believe in, which may not be the same as what WE believe in, but in their mind they are right, just as we think we are. I may not entirely believe in their cause, but I respect their willingness to sacrifice.
I think I'd have to hear that in context to be sure. You've had that advantage, I assume. But what Donald said sounds right.
I see that Peter J. Swanson is confused about values. First, Peter, oil is not a value. But it is valuable and rightly so. How would you get along without it? Could you even run your electricity without it? Could the U.S. be sitting ducks for any enemy without it? Could the U.S. do most of the positive things it does worldwide without it? It's pretty important, and I wish people remembered it's not just for gas or for heating their homes.
Thomas, of course, it's possible the enemy soldiers are sacrificing for their country and its values. It's also possible, even likely, they have no choice and that their families will suffer if they do not.
My concern isn't with what the other guy's values are unless his values make him hurt me or my country, right? So what's your point?
Thomas: It is not a question as to which country's cause is the "right" one. Believe it or not, Germans in WWII felt that they were fighting for precisely the same things that we were fighting for, "freedom and justice." The issue is the willingness of people to sacrifice themselves for "something greater than themselves," which is a noble thing regardless of the issue about war and fighting in general. I admire the Japanese Kamikazi pilots of World War II for their willingness to sacrifice themselves for something greater than themselves, the ultimate in selflessness. I admire those Germans who did the same. I think it is illogical and dishonorable to equate this issue of honoring those who sacrificed so much because it happened during an exercise in futility (war) that one disapproves of. These are two distinctly different issues. War is bad, but sacrifice for one's country is not. I also deeply resent anyone who will besmirch our valiant service men and their sacrifices for political purposes and "anti-war propaganda." If you think that war is bad, say so. If you think that the Iraqi was was a mistake, say so. But don't take it out on our men in uniform. They are serving us and protecting us. We are at war and whether we agree with this war or not, we should stand behind our soldiers and our country. Period. I find all this political anti-Bush political rhetoric disgusting and ignoble as hell. WE (the American people) voted for Bush. He is OUR president even if you or "them" did not personally cast a vote for him. That is the spirit of this country. We accept the results and stand loyal to the country regardless. I find anyone who would bring our soldiers into question or their service into question (particularly during war, as happened before in the Vietnam era) cowardly and despicable.
Donald: I agree with you regarding the duty to respect the office of President, and not to backbite against or criticize public figures. I also do not engage in political controversy.
Thomas, what's the childish game in the 21 century? That our soldiers are fighting for what we believe in, and so are theirs? What's childish about that? You can say the same for the Civil War or the Revolutionary War.
Dead soldiers just make me sad, no matter what country they come from. They all have loved ones, values, beliefs and their lives are torn from those loved ones over issues that wont mean a hill of beans if a big asteroid smashes into the earth or some crazy sets off nuclear bombs all over the place. What are we killing ourselves for?
Mary M.: I agree. And Thomas is right. War is juvenile in this day. Actually, war is a result of our not having matured fully as humans. We are still more in our "animal state" than our "divinely human" state. We were meant for more than scrapping over bananas like a baboon troop. This puts us who are alive today in a very special point of human history. Most of us are still living in our baboon mentality while some of us have evolved socially and religiously enough to recognize not only that war (among other things) is "infantile" as Thomas says but that we can evolve out of that operational paradigm resulting in endless wars if we can get enough of our fellow humans (the rest of the baboon "troop") to move ahead with us. That is, we need to make truly radical changes in the way we do things politically so that we can solve mutual "competition-al" issues with reason instead of fists. But more important is the fact that if we don't do this pretty soon, our scientific advances will run too far ahead of our spiritual advances so that our spiritual nature loses control and efficacy in the moral/ethical use of what we come up with technically. In short, we will destroy ourselves through technical superiority combined with spiritual and moral infancy. Therefore, the critical thing for our survival is not just the cessation of war (which is not a detached activity of it's own making but a result of the failure of diplomatic maturity) but the adoption of a completely modernized political paradigm that eliminates the need for war. And this will only come about when a large majority of the people are more mature socially. "But that's another story," as they said in the old film, IRMA LA DOUCE.
This comment is to let you know that this content has reached at least ten comments, and as such has been removed from Comment Speedway! Congratulations, and check out our Triple Trouble Special Feature!
Elizabeth is correct in that oil is a necessary commodity to the well being of the entire world. The population of this world could not be sustained without it. Sad, but true.
Donald is absolutely correct in his comments. We should, regardless of our personal convictions of the correctness of a war, hold it against those who serve their country and obey their commanders. They are not trained to make judgment calls in battle but to obey legitimate orders and let those above them determine the suitability of the overall action. The sacrifice they make is tremendous and for that they should not be denigrated.
James: Thank you for expressing your views. That somewhat worn out expression "serve their country" leaps out at me and stabs me right in the soul. Is that concept from divine scripture - the 10 commandments perhaps? What about "service to mankind"? Or "service to God"? Is that too foolish a notion, or am I centuries ahead of my time?
Thomas: Yes, you are ahead of your time. We need to be more patient with the slowness of people to mature. We need to keep on pointing out to them how to improve as you are doing. But in the meantime, I think that "serving one's country" is at least a step in the right direction because of it's intention, if not for it's practical application. The desire in people to be unselfish at least in some respects by serving a "higher interest" is laudable and needs to be kept alive in them until they are able to put it into action in a more practical concept of it.
Donald: Yes, you are quite correct, except for the devastating fact that "serving one's country" CAN be a noble gesture, however when it means slaughtering the people of another country that's a whole other story reverting us to a tribe of baboons.
Thomas: Sure, of course. But when in Rome, do as the Romans do. If a deranged man (or woman, to be politically correct) bursts into your home with a gun and threatens to shoot you and your family, it is realistically "unwise" to insist on not taking defensive (or offensive in the sense of fighting) action. I suggest that until the police arrive it is wiser to take any opportunity to disarm and even kill the intruder. It will be difficult for a peace loving person to do and distasteful as hell, but damn wise. If and when the "police" arrive and restore order, it is another story.
Donald: That sound reasonable, however I have heard someone far wiser that I say, "It's better to be killed than to kill". That may not apply when one is defending his family, or others than himself alone.
In the last real war, WW II, there was little doubt in the minds of the citizens of this nation that we would be under German or Japanese occupation if we did not fight and many civilians would loose their lives in the process. This put those who fought in the category of defending the civilian population or others than themselves. This was considered by most Americans to be a service to their country. Virtually everyone or our generation knows at least one military person who lost their life in this defense.
James: Thank you for your comments. Looking at the big picture I would say that mankind has progressed since that time. Just look at what the former warring nations of Europe have accomplished in recent years.
Thomas: Yes. We're both speaking to "the choir." I'm talking about generalities on a national scale and international scale. That same "someone far wiser" also said that we cannot reward lying and dishonorable acts... or something to that effect. To do that is to encourage such behavior and is socially unacceptable. While we may wish to sacrifice our personal safety and life for the "better good," we cannot do it with someone else's life and welfare. We can be generous with our own life and safety but not with someone else's life and safety.
You are centuries ahead of your time! When one is in the armed forces, he or she may do a lot of things besides fight in wars. Of course that is what they are prepared for but they may also assist with other things as well. However, if we had no, that is zero, armed forces, how long do you believe it would be before we were taken over by another nation? Also, how would that effect the balance of power in the world? Do you think that total unilateral disarmament and disbanding of armed forces would cause say, China, to do likewise? Or would Osama lay down his arms, to go from a big to a little?
No, those who are in the military do serve their country. That may well not be their reason for being there but they do serve and deserve our thanks. Just as those who serve in the IRS or the Department of the Interior deserve our thanks. Sure, you might like to strangle some of them at times but most are just doing their jobs. I'm totally convinced that people in this world are not to the point where we can consider going without an armed forces and probably won't be for some time in the future.
Like you, I consider the maturation of mankind to be reaching that point in our development, but we're not there. Do you disagree? Please comment.
By the way, I do not sanction the use of a standing armed forces for nation building, advancement of our religion, to push our economic plans or to try to export our system of government. These are improper uses of such an army. Unfortunately, that has been the common usage of armed forces in recent years.
To fight over a piece of dirt, then be buried in it? What sense does that make? Our sense of loyalty is childish and primitive. It's time for mankind to grow up and behave as adults.
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
Please select the part of the post you are reporting.
Please select why you are reporting this content.
Please enter a description.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 44
Soon we'll not only be saluting those who have died for our oil - we'll all just start saluting oil.
I see that Peter J. Swanson is confused about values. First, Peter, oil is not a value. But it is valuable and rightly so. How would you get along without it? Could you even run your electricity without it? Could the U.S. be sitting ducks for any enemy without it? Could the U.S. do most of the positive things it does worldwide without it? It's pretty important, and I wish people remembered it's not just for gas or for heating their homes.
Thomas, of course, it's possible the enemy soldiers are sacrificing for their country and its values. It's also possible, even likely, they have no choice and that their families will suffer if they do not.
My concern isn't with what the other guy's values are unless his values make him hurt me or my country, right? So what's your point?
Elizabeth is correct in that oil is a necessary commodity to the well being of the entire world. The population of this world could not be sustained without it. Sad, but true.
Donald is absolutely correct in his comments. We should, regardless of our personal convictions of the correctness of a war, hold it against those who serve their country and obey their commanders. They are not trained to make judgment calls in battle but to obey legitimate orders and let those above them determine the suitability of the overall action. The sacrifice they make is tremendous and for that they should not be denigrated.
Thomas,
In the last real war, WW II, there was little doubt in the minds of the citizens of this nation that we would be under German or Japanese occupation if we did not fight and many civilians would loose their lives in the process. This put those who fought in the category of defending the civilian population or others than themselves. This was considered by most Americans to be a service to their country. Virtually everyone or our generation knows at least one military person who lost their life in this defense.
James: Thank you for your comments. Looking at the big picture I would say that mankind has progressed since that time. Just look at what the former warring nations of Europe have accomplished in recent years.
You are centuries ahead of your time! When one is in the armed forces, he or she may do a lot of things besides fight in wars. Of course that is what they are prepared for but they may also assist with other things as well. However, if we had no, that is zero, armed forces, how long do you believe it would be before we were taken over by another nation? Also, how would that effect the balance of power in the world? Do you think that total unilateral disarmament and disbanding of armed forces would cause say, China, to do likewise? Or would Osama lay down his arms, to go from a big to a little?
No, those who are in the military do serve their country. That may well not be their reason for being there but they do serve and deserve our thanks. Just as those who serve in the IRS or the Department of the Interior deserve our thanks. Sure, you might like to strangle some of them at times but most are just doing their jobs. I'm totally convinced that people in this world are not to the point where we can consider going without an armed forces and probably won't be for some time in the future.
Like you, I consider the maturation of mankind to be reaching that point in our development, but we're not there. Do you disagree? Please comment.
To salute the dead is meaningless if one does not respect the living. And vice versa.
To fight over a piece of dirt, then be buried in it? What sense does that make? Our sense of loyalty is childish and primitive. It's time for mankind to grow up and behave as adults.