Just another job…….

Just another job…….

……………that’s how a military man described his job on the radio the other day. That’s like saying that the Grim Reaper with the sickle is just doing “another job”; the executioner is just doing “another job”………………

………………I hope when Death comes to keep his appointment with the military man and says, “Just doing my job, mate!” the military man will be able to smile and shake his hand and say, “Quite understand. I won’t hold you up then. Let’s be off! By the way, which way are you taking me? Up or down?”

99.99% of the ‘work’ in the military does not involve killing anyone

I have quite a few members of my family and friends military, one is frontline. Tell you what dragon, when the military comes to rescue you or your family after a catastrophe, call them killers and try to send them away.

…it kind of depends on the nature of the catastrophe: a nuclear bomb exploding in the vicinity, ancient ordinance suddenly erupting under my house, invasion of foreign forces, volcanic eruption, volcanic eruption due to proximity of volcano to underground nuclear testing facility…I wonder, in terms of numbers, whether the number of catastrophes caused by the military is greater or less than those due to natural causes!

Besides, people managed to deal with catastrophes before the military…and they are best to do so because the instant, on the spot reaction is likely to do far more good than the delayed reaction of people who are not local and therefore unfamiliar with the territory and don’t know that Mrs Whatsit hasn’t been seen. And another thing: it is weakening to depend on the military. People used to have a better attitude of mind. They looked after themselves. Not only is that a healthier attitude, but if you are used to looking after yourself, you become aware and maintain an awareness, of possible sources of danger in your locality and will probably strategies for coping if any of those dangers does become realised.

Well, the army caterers may not actually be doing any killing, but they exist because the killers exist and the killers need to be fed — so you actually do the killing yourself or you feed somebody else to do the killing? Not a lot of difference, I think.

So lets just disband all branches of military and law enforcement, that will be so much better. And while we are at it, take away all civilian weapons.

And just Who would be doing that?

You would have to ask dragon that one. Apparently not having such is better than having. I figure if you want it gone you should have a plan.

Talk about over-reacting! But not a bad idea nontheless. There are more approaches to surviving, and even winning, than going head on. For example, the British might have let Hitler take over Britain without a fight. The ethic here would be: All things come to those who wait. So, inevitably, Hitler’s empire would collapse in time. One could just wait for that event. The advantage of this approach, or one of them, is that one faces the world with a very non-aggressive stance. Aggression excites aggression; non-aggression tends to placate and lower the emotional temperature. Thus a policy of non-aggression could be very advantageous. (And if you consider that Hitler engineered his own downfall when he turned on the USSR, which was biting off considerably more than he could chew, Britain would not have had to wait long for Hitler’s downfall.) And of course, the other very obvious advantage: consider the gargantuan portion of the UK’s wealth that goes into maintaining her armed forces…what could we not do with that money?

In other words, you would rely on the Ruskies to do the fighting. You expect them to fight for their freedom…and to save you.
Fortunately for you, they would do that.

Regular people are fine (they usually believe they deserve more out of life, and their scope is wider). It’s the idealistic and closed-minded ones that are scary because that is all they see, it IS their life and they could not ‘see’ any thing else because they are so absorbed that everything and everyone around them is perceptually and realistically bended to accommodate their ‘noble’ identity (think of their perpetually ‘drifting’ military wives and children). And who does his woman become? A ‘military wife’ who follows her husband wherever he goes. And she is proud of it, too. She even advertises it. Her identity and life is bound and dependent on his identity.

I guess they also call them “professionals”.

Oh boy, surrender and life goes on as normal. Slavery, rape, mass slaughter just because your type is despised and since you surrendered, oh well its destiny… Oh wait all nations out to conquer and create empires are such nice sweet people and view the people they just kicked the crap out of as equals… silly me I must have read the wrong things… humans are so kind to each other.

Don’t be ridiculous. I did not say your life would go on as normal. But if we consider, say, WWI this time, there could have been a hell of a lot of trouble to be dealt with as a conquered people before one got anywhere near the kind of trouble, the kind of suffering, that was endured throughout the war. So one might consider it a question of the lesser of two evils. But there’s more to it than that even. The trouble experienced as a conquered people will depend, repeat depend, on how you behave yourself. The French, for example, (going back to WWII) would not have suffered half so much if it were nopt for the lads that got hold of weapons supplied by the British and ran amok under the name of “resistance”.

Silly you, you say, you must have read the wrong things…there’s nothing like personal experience. No amount of reading will make up for a lack of personal experience. My own experience is that of extensive travel. I have been to all sorts of places, many, or even most, of which were considered dangerous for backpackers such as myself. And most of the other travellers I encountered in these places got into all sorts of trouble, or else confined themselves to the relatively safe areas. I travelled all these places without trouble. I made friends with people who were considered aggressive and dangerous and I found them to be friendly and harmless…sometimes spectacularly so, so that some of the places where travel turned out to be easiest and safest were in places where I had been warned of extreme danger. Like I said, it’s all a matter of your OWN attitude. You bring trouble on yourself or you invite good things.

To go back to WWII and the possibility of Britian surrendering. The British as they are would have invited trouble. People like me would have done the opposite. That is not to say that the Nazis would not have been troublesome to start with, but that my attitude would have had a calming influence and might in the end have lead to friendship. And I’m not talking about collaboration, which I rather suspect is a facile conclusion you would have jumped to at this point. Collaboration is not the answer either, and will cause just as much trouble as resistance. I’m talking about something else. I’m talking about respect both for other people and for myself and about not wishing ill on other people no matter who or what they may be. I’m talking about accepting people for what they are. It may surprise you, but if you respect a murderer, a concentration camp warder, then they will not instantly change but they will improve slowly over time.

Oh don’t be so silly!

Yes, you may only have to endure 50 years of murder and enslavement. :confused:

Dragon, the people you met were not at war with you or yours. So why would they cause you problems? Equating that to Hitler’s war is naive. An aggressor has a target, if you are not part of that target they will leave you alone and or be peaceful towards you. Targets tend to say that the aggressor will attack anyone, which is not true. Your attitude did not “save” you. You just were not a target. A hunter going after a deer will feed a squirrel and kill the deer.

Yes, if you can end it in 50 years and end up friends with former enemies, then it is worthwhile. If it takes 100 years it’s worthwhile. If it takes 500 years it’s worthwhile since this happy situation of enmity has persisted for thousands of yeras and shows no signs of coming to an end.

No, Kriswest. As I tried to explain, I was not alone but one of many travellers that I met. These other travellers were no way, apparently, different from me, but where they got into trouble, I passed safely and even found friendship and had good times with the locals. So what WAS the difference, because there obviously WAS a difference: it was attitude.

In other words you did not become part of the aggressor’s target, you were a squirrel while they hunted deer. Attitude is all well and good in some cases to few cases. They tell women to not fight their rapist to be passive, well that may have worked before rapists wised up and realized they were leaving a witness behind that can put them in jail. So they remove even the passive ones that lay there ready for a knife or bullet or rope etc. Where did passive attitude help them? I would say fighting hard gives you more chance. When an aggressor is attacking you will you just take it? Attitude does not protect as you think it does. Understanding what the target is, does.

I was just following orders?