Angry-Left-Wing Academics Who Don't Understand The Warrior Culture
D. Spencer Hines
> news:gc5Zj.5283$ah.4201@trnddc06...
Did Brannigan rebel against his father and mother at an early age?...
>> of course
>> politely but yes
Pogue Brannigan -- University of Maryland, College Park
He probably erred severely there. They were both naval officers and I'll
bet they could have taught him a lot more, if he had listened -- even some
things about the Warrior Culture and Warrior Ethic.
When he is older, he MAY understand that better.
It is a Great Mistake to think that Warriors just take orders all the time
and don't think for themselves.
> I'm sure they think for themselves in carrying out orders
> but its stillorders [sic] or they are just free lance [sic] killers [sic]
Pogue Brannigan
Nope. Brannigan is Dead Wrong there.
The critical, collaborative and creative thinking involved would astound
Pogue Brannigan. Hard Intellectual & Practical Work. Very Difficult.
Brannigan, in concert with many Angry Left-Wing Academics, suffers under the
grave misconception that men and women in the Armed Forces are "grunts" --
not very smart, "just following orders" ---- and certainly not creative,
independent thinkers.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p.
397.
J A
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:tBi_j.1014$v91....@eagle.america.net...
>> "Vincent Brannigan" <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
>> news:gc5Zj.5283$ah.4201@trnddc06...
>
> Did Brannigan rebel against his father and mother at an early age?...
>
>>> of course
>>> politely but yes
>
> Pogue Brannigan -- University of Maryland, College Park
>
> He probably erred severely there. They were both naval officers and I'll
> bet they could have taught him a lot more, if he had listened -- even some
> things about the Warrior Culture and Warrior Ethic.
>
> When he is older, he MAY understand that better.
Demented academic hot air bags aside, what kind of "warrior culture" could
support a draft dodger for VP, and a stupid rich kid who used daddy's
political contacts to evade any dangerous wartime duty?
The "warrior culture" in the US is evolving toward guys looking for large
paychecks, who could care less about national objectives when they use their
automatic weapons to spray down civilians because there might be a threat
somewhere to their "noun".
Larry Swain
Let's not forget that one of the values of warrior culture is to take
care of one's own men rather than let them languish in horrid conditions
and not to ruin the career of a respected and able leader with political
nonsense.
Billzz
news:RI-dnXggPujnxqHV...@rcn.net...
Just passing by. Here's some definitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior
The US absolutely does not have a warrior class. The military academies are
graduating the managerial classes.
Somewhere in my past history from private to colonel, from jump school to
The National War College, I heard the words of Attila, or maybe Genghis
written down as that the greatest joy is to kill all of the enemy's men,
enslave their women, kill all the male children, and march the slaves past
the mounds of the dead enemy. Something like that. Very much different than
anything the US has ever done. Or any other modern civilization, for that
matter. What I heard about that period of history is that warriors followed
the supreme warrior to share in the victory spoils of war. No mention of
caring for anyone, not even their own. Less loot to share that way. Many
stories of isolated fortified cities, making a pact to surrender, then
having their chiefs cut into pieces, and the obligatory raping, looting, and
slavery. Whether that was Attila or Genghis I don't remember, but we are
far away from any "warrior culture" today.
gfjz...@nospam.net
So billz according to you, the military academy's don't produce warriors.
They make managers.
No wonder you army idiots keep being defeated by untrained, uneducated
desert dwellers and farmers.
In <e3bf5$483ca614$9440b19b$25...@STARBAND.NET>, on 05/27/2008
last one still@laughingatyou.com Dr. HeadMuthaFookerInChargeThirteenSixtyNine, Ph.D.
his watch!
What the morons failed to understand is that the Warrior Culture starved to
death, because everyone neglected the Farmer Culture. America and Americans
are pretty stupid sad to say. For all my time on this earth for more then
half of a century my country has been at War, with new enemy's, old
enemy's,and even old friends in dozens of country's directly involved or in
the least covertly involved with little or nothing to show for all of our
efforts, except War Memorials and Holiday's. Are we powerful? Sort of! Are
we wealthy? no not really, is our economy bullit proof? I guess like a
Hummer is IED proof. Do we lead the world to better tomorrows, nope! Our
greatest export to the whole world is fear, killing and providing many of
the tools to do it, to the morons and like Reagan to even the same morons we
have problems with. Iran is just another of our failures from the past to
haunt us just as Afghanistan and Iraq!. America has placed "the American
Interests" far and above the American people, or for that fact any peoples
of this planet. You can't champion FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY, then attack
everyones privacy and embrace "Rule of Law" by ignoring your very own laws
and those of other nations then sell a shitload of weapons to kill in many
cases your/their own people!
It used to be Live and Let Live, but apparently Corpotrate Christianity is
failing itself and has made it's own failures to lay blame on the Muslim
Nations. As we muster for war against Iran for (as we did for Iraq) using
the NUKEYLURE scare word..... I find it funny how Israel is both protected
and defended and it's Nuke Arsenal is ignored and denied at best by all of
America....You know it's sad when SECURITY appears to be only real issues in
America and Israel... I guess that's why Israel gets to export all it's
security models and equipment to the United States, and if the fear factor
was missing...they'd be broke! Gee maybe that Zionist Religious State with
beach front property in a Muslim Region wasn't the brightest idea eh? DUH!
But what everyone fails to understand is that if your in the business of
rules and regulations and the enforcement thereof, it has to be across the
board.....otherwise it's all for naught....unless War is your ONLY mainstay!
Your only claim to fame!
Funny though.... The Muslim Nations apparently are by far wealthier then
America I guess when all you do is invest in wars, it's the Memorials. the
ribbons and medals that count! (until you try to cash them in)
<gfjz...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:sG5%j.5423$jA.237@trndny09...
D. Spencer Hines
William Black
> They make managers.
>
> No wonder you army idiots keep being defeated by untrained, uneducated
> desert dwellers and farmers.
Define 'defeated' here please.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
James Hogg
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
><gfjz...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:sG5%j.5423$jA.237@trndny09...
>>
>>
>> So billz according to you, the military academy's [sic] don't produce warriors.
>> They make managers.
>>
>> No wonder you army idiots keep being shat on by untrained, uneducated
>> desert dwellers and farmers.
>
>Define 'defeated' here please.
The "c" in the middle of the word is missing.
James
Jack Linthicum
> "Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>
> news:RI-dnXggPujnxqHV...@rcn.net...|J A wrote:
>
> | >news:tBi_j.1014$v91....@eagle.america.net...
> | >
> | >>>"Vincent Brannigan" <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
There are a lot of people who are the fringes of the "Warrior Culture"
who think that by espousing its apparent principles they will become
part of it. Anyone who dreams up armed encounters and dangerous
situations and then can't quite place them in history or location is
fooling himself. Just biting a pretty girl on the ass, dropping your
pants at a wedding reception or jumping off a two-story building
doesn't make you a warrior. Neither is not riding a dud aircraft into
the ground or at least away from populated areas "Warrior".
My favorite non-warrior moment was the DER skipper who manuevered his
ship into the middle of a group of three Russian ships and when one of
them started to back down on him got the message from the engine room
"Captain, we have enough air for one more start." He ran.
deem...@aol.com
>
> news:RI-dnXggPujnxqHV...@rcn.net...|J A wrote:
>
> | >news:tBi_j.1014$v91....@eagle.america.net...
> | >
> | >>>"Vincent Brannigan" <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
I'm pretty sure that was Conan the Barbarian :-)
deem...@aol.com
wrote:
> On May 27, 8:46 pm, "Billzz" <billzzstr...@starband.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>
Soldiers tend to kick warriors' butts.
gfjz...@nospam.net
Give it up right winger. I'm not going to play your right wign kook word
games. -- We lost the Vietnam war, and we have lost the iraq war.
In <g1j5ph$16g$1...@registered.motzarella.org>, on 05/28/2008
La N
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:e875d7ad-8554-4706...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Hines keeps expounding on the "warrior class" of which he supposedly is a
proud member. Somehow, I can't get the visual out of my head of a photo of a
muu-muu attired, lei-donned, mai-tai sipping armchair commander sitting in
front of a computer screen with the words WARRIOR CLASS (Made in the USA)
pencilled in under the photo out of my head. It may not scare terrorists,
but it sure scares me ...%)
- nilita
John Briggs
Which is where all this "warrior" nonsense comes from, anyway.
(And science fiction. I'm reminded of the very silly film "Millenium"
(1989), where Cheryl Ladd plays a time-traveller from the future trying to
blend in with 20th century American society, and says that she had lived
overseas as a child, as "My father was a warrior"! She gets odd looks...
It is a trifle alarming that the usage should have spread to the US Armed
Forces, but not, I suppose, entirely surprising.)
--
John Briggs
Jack Linthicum
> deemsb...@aol.com wrote:
> > On May 27, 8:46 pm, "Billzz" <billzzstr...@starband.net> wrote:
> >> "Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>
According to the Random House Dictionary, the term warrior has two
meanings. The first literal use refers to "a person engaged or
experienced in warfare." The second figurative use refers to "a person
who shows or has shown great vigor, courage, or aggressiveness, as in
politics or athletics." (notice "or" in the second definition, not
"and")
deem...@aol.com
> > On May 27, 8:46 pm, "Billzz" <billzzstr...@starband.net> wrote:
> >> "Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>
The Marines have always gone with the warrior thing....partly for
the macho image and partly because they resent being lumped in with
the Army pukes as soldiers.
deem...@aol.com
wrote:
Using warrior for the latter is an insult to the former :-)
Historically, warrior has been used to differentiate tribal-type
fighters from more organized soldiers. The warrior as "noble
barbarian" and all that crap. Soldiers usually hand warriors their
heads, but the warriors have gotten lucky enough times to keep it
honest.
deem...@aol.com
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:e875d7ad-8554-4706...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 27, 8:46 pm, "Billzz" <billzzstr...@starband.net> wrote:
> >> "Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>
Since the US has never had a warrior class, I'd call it more of a
fraternity :-)
James Hogg
<john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>deem...@aol.com wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure that was Conan the Barbarian :-)
>
>Which is where all this "warrior" nonsense comes from, anyway.
Bill Safire wrote a column about the increasing prevalence of the
word. He prefers it to the Defense Department's term "servicemember".
He has this to say about one of the possible alternatives:
"Freedom fighter, once an honored designation, has been corrupted in
current usage by insurgents or terrorists claiming the title."
Pity he didn't try to explain the difference between an insurgent and
a freedom fighter.
Anyway, freedom fighter is a dodgy term because it's ambiguous. If you
compare it with fire fighter it could be construed to mean someone who
seeks to extinguish freedom.
Read the whole article at
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/magazine/26wwln-safire-t.html
>(And science fiction. I'm reminded of the very silly film "Millenium"
That was shown in Scotland under the title "Millennium" (a thousand
years as opposed to a thousand arseholes).
James
William Black
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:70bdd071-b1f3-45e8...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
--------------------------
Historically, warrior has been used to differentiate tribal-type
fighters from more organized soldiers. The warrior as "noble
barbarian" and all that crap. Soldiers usually hand warriors their
heads, but the warriors have gotten lucky enough times to keep it
honest.
------------------------------
Five warriors can beat ten soldiers.
A hundred soldiers can beat a whole tribe...
Larry Swain
He like his hero Shrub and the o so brave Dickhead Cheney probably never
saw action, and so have to make up for it by being "hawks".
Tiglath
Brannigan. Hard Intellectual & Practical Work. Very Difficult.
>
> Brannigan, in concert with many Angry Left-Wing Academics, suffers under the
> grave misconception that men and women in the Armed Forces are "grunts" --
> not very smart, "just following orders" ---- and certainly not creative,
> independent thinkers.
>
But where there is an independently thinking warrior, thinking is all
he can do outside the scope of his orders, for the military system
RELIES on curtailing individual initiative, so that large
concentrations of personnel can be controlled reliably.
Mr. Hines extolling of the free thinking warrior, is analogous to the
exaltation of the freedom of bacteria in penicillin.
The military is an INHIBITOR of personal initiative by design. Any
personal freedom and initiative left over operates always inside a
sandbox of varying sizes.
It is tantamount to imprisoning one's intellect. The higher the rank
the better the prison, but prison still. It's one of life's
choices.
A military career can heap honor and gratitude from those being served
by it, and rightly so, but it is silly to deny the essential
characteristics of military life, and lack of individual freedom,
relative to civilian life, is one of them.
deem...@aol.com
> On May 25, 2:42 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
> Brannigan. Hard Intellectual & Practical Work. Very Difficult.
>
>
>
> > Brannigan, in concert with many Angry Left-Wing Academics, suffers under the
> > grave misconception that men and women in the Armed Forces are "grunts" --
> > not very smart, "just following orders" ---- and certainly not creative,
> > independent thinkers.
>
> But where there is an independently thinking warrior, thinking is all
> he can do outside the scope of his orders, for the military system
> RELIES on curtailing individual initiative, so that large
> concentrations of personnel can be controlled reliably.
Thinking and initiative are encouraged....within the scope of
orders, of course :-)
>
> Mr. Hines extolling of the free thinking warrior, is analogous to the
> exaltation of the freedom of bacteria in penicillin.
>
> The military is an INHIBITOR of personal initiative by design. Any
> personal freedom and initiative left over operates always inside a
> sandbox of varying sizes.
>
> It is tantamount to imprisoning one's intellect. The higher the rank
> the better the prison, but prison still. It's one of life's
> choices.
It's really only a matter of degree. Unless you work for yourself,
we all have constraints with regards to our work performance and
environments. Even when self-employed, the cutomers are going to put
restraints on you....well, if you want to be successful.
>
> A military career can heap honor and gratitude from those being served
> by it, and rightly so, but it is silly to deny the essential
> characteristics of military life, and lack of individual freedom,
> relative to civilian life, is one of them.
True.
D. Spencer Hines
for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors. The Military Officers Association
of America, in testimony to Congress, calls for veterans’ benefits for
“Guard and Reserve warriors.”
"The Naval Academy in Annapolis has a course on “the code of the warrior,”
and the U.S. Army’s Platoon Leader Development Course is now named the
Warrior Leader Course and has issued a “Warrior Ethos” that begins: “I am an
American Soldier. I am a Warrior and a member of a team.”"
"The word connotes honor and bravery as well as fierceness in battle; after
World War I, the British dedicated a tomb in Westminster Abbey to “the
Unknown Warrior.”
"It is a compliment: “Warrior” is the title of Ariel Sharon’s autobiography,
written with David Chanoff, inscribed to a longtime supporter as “a
warrior-journalist.”
"Nor need it be taken as anti-intellectual: the quarterly American Interest
has a cover article about warrior-scholars."
Bill Safire
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/magazine/26wwln-safire-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin>
------------------------------------
We need more WARRIORS and fewer insipid BUREAUCRATIC MANAGERS of the
"Billzz" Ilk.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
Don T
news:a61c34a5-a648-4b03...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> True.
Some willingly sacrifice their individual freedom so as to ensure that
others may enjoy the benefit. Far too many people ignore that simple fact
and some go so far as to denigrate those who willingly serve in far away
lands under conditions likely to result in their death or dismemberment so
that the denigrators are free to spout bullshit without worrying that their
bullshit might bring about their own death or imprisonment.
--
Don Thompson
Stolen from Dan: "Just thinking, besides, I watched 2 dogs mating once,
and that makes me an expert. "
There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance.
~Goethe
It is a worthy thing to fight for one's freedom;
it is another sight finer to fight for another man's.
~Mark Twain
James Hogg
<pan...@excelsior.com> cut and pasted from Bill Safire,
using a link provided by me:
<snip>
Well, I'm glad somebody reads my posts, even if it is only you, David.
James
Jack Linthicum
> "Bob Dole and Donna Shalala preside over the President’s Commission on Care
> for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors. The Military Officers Association
> of America, in testimony to Congress, calls for veterans’ benefits for
> “Guard and Reserve warriors.”
>
> "The Naval Academy in Annapolis has a course on “the code of the warrior,”
> and the U.S. Army’s Platoon Leader Development Course is now named the
> Warrior Leader Course and has issued a “Warrior Ethos” that begins: “I am an
> American Soldier. I am a Warrior and a member of a team.”"
>
> "The word connotes honor and bravery as well as fierceness in battle; after
> World War I, the British dedicated a tomb in Westminster Abbey to “the
> Unknown Warrior.”
>
> "It is a compliment: “Warrior” is the title of Ariel Sharon’s autobiography,
> written with David Chanoff, inscribed to a longtime supporter as “a
> warrior-journalist.”
>
> "Nor need it be taken as anti-intellectual: the quarterly American Interest
> has a cover article about warrior-scholars."
>
> Bill Safire
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> We need more WARRIORS and fewer insipid BUREAUCRATIC MANAGERS of the
> "Billzz" Ilk.
>
> DSH
>
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>
> Deus Vult
During WW I, at least one-third of the war dead were unidentifiable.
The British army chaplain, David Railton, is often credited with the
idea of the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior, after burying Londoners
killed on the Somme. In reality, the idea probably had a French
source. In 1920, both Britain and France decided to bury a
representative unidentified corpse with full honours. Both nations
staged elaborate ceremonials choosing the body to guarantee anonymity.
In the French case, an infantry soldier chose one coffin from six. In
the British case the choice was from four bodies from the 1914
battlefields of Ypres, Mons, the Marne, and the Aisne. On 11 November,
the second anniversary of the Armistice, a British soldier was
interred in Westminster Abbey and a French soldier beneath the Arc de
Triomphe. The British use of the word ‘warrior’ rather than soldier
was supposed to indicate symbolic inclusiveness for all armed forces
and for the empire.
Tiglath
> <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a61c34a5-a648-4b03...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >On May 28, 1:13 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>
> >> A military career can heap honor and gratitude from those being served
> >> by it, and rightly so, but it is silly to deny the essential
> >> characteristics of military life, and lack of individual freedom,
> >> relative to civilian life, is one of them.
> > True.
>
> Some willingly sacrifice their individual freedom so as to ensure that
> others may enjoy the benefit. Far too many people ignore that simple fact
> and some go so far as to denigrate those who willingly serve in far away
> lands under conditions likely to result in their death or dismemberment so
> that the denigrators are free to spout bullshit without worrying that their
> bullshit might bring about their own death or imprisonment.
>
No one has denigrated the military in this section of the thread.
Saying that military personnel are far less free to act on their
individuality than civilians is an accurate description.
When choosing a military career very specific purposes are being
served. Service to one's country by personal sacrifice is the main
one. And what is being sacrificed, in addition of personal safety,
is personal freedom. That the sacrifice is honorable doesn't make it
less of a sacrifice.
Those who want to attain the maximum development and expression of
their individual talents, other than the talent to kill and destroy,
don't choose the military to do it, for they will be necessarily
inhibited.
It is SILLY to extol the warrior's freedom as Mr. Hines does. Even
kids know that soldier life is anything but a banquet of liberties,
the fact that it's in the service of preserving the countries liberty
notwithstanding.
Vincent Brannigan
Both Shay and Grossman have worked
extensively with American combat veterans. Their research reveals that
the lasting psychological damage suffered by some veterans (such as
debilitating post-traumatic stress) is most often the result of
experiences that are not simply violent, but which involve what Shay
calls the "betrayal of 'what's right.'" Veterans who believe that they
were directly or indirectly party to immoral or dishonorable behavior
(perpetrated by themselves, their comrades, or their commanders) have
the hardest time reclaiming their lives after the war is over.
http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i28/28b00701.htm
Vince
deem...@aol.com
>
> news:a61c34a5-a648-4b03...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >On May 28, 1:13 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>
> >> A military career can heap honor and gratitude from those being served
> >> by it, and rightly so, but it is silly to deny the essential
> >> characteristics of military life, and lack of individual freedom,
> >> relative to civilian life, is one of them.
> > True.
>
> Some willingly sacrifice their individual freedom so as to ensure that
> others may enjoy the benefit. Far too many people ignore that simple fact
> and some go so far as to denigrate those who willingly serve in far away
> lands under conditions likely to result in their death or dismemberment so
> that the denigrators are free to spout bullshit without worrying that their
> bullshit might bring about their own death or imprisonment.
>
> --
>
> Don Thompson
>
What bullshit has been spouted here?
deem...@aol.com
Actually, a warrior has a lot of individual freedom. A soldier
doesn't as much.
D. Spencer Hines
For All The Obvious Reasons.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Semper Fidelis
D. Spencer Hines
An Angry Left-Wing Academic.
Par For The Course.
DSH
"Vincent Brannigan" <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
news:iai%j.8666$nx6.1100@trnddc03...
J A
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:0mk%j.1077$v91....@eagle.america.net...
> _The Unknown Warrior_ is a FAR better name than _The Unknown Soldier_...
>
> For All The Obvious Reasons.
A lot of them are overweight. Many do their "warrioring" from behind a desk.
It's just phony bullshit that appeals to Bush Republicans who always remain
at a safe distance, but has little meaning to the bullet catchers.
There are cases of conscientious objectors who would do no "warrior"
killing, but displayed heroism as medics. They were soldiers in the full
meaning of the word.
Raymond O'Hara
"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:174aac23-e2f5-4116...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On May 25, 2:42 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
> Brannigan. Hard Intellectual & Practical Work. Very Difficult.
>>
>> Brannigan, in concert with many Angry Left-Wing Academics, suffers under
>> the
>> grave misconception that men and women in the Armed Forces are
>> "grunts" --
>> not very smart, "just following orders" ---- and certainly not creative,
>> independent thinkers.
>>
the difference between left wingers and right wingers is that rightwinger
push for war and left wingers actually show up for it.
there are no left wing chickenhawks., that is solely the province of the
right
Vincent Brannigan
> The Insipid Focus of...
>
> An Angry Left-Wing Academic.
>
What a hoot!!!!!
Hines falls deep in the shit again
The quote is from the Naval Academy professor who teaches the Course
Shannon E. French is an assistant professor of philosophy at the U.S.
Naval Academy. Her book, The Code of the Warrior: Exploring Warrior
Values Past and Present, will be published by Rowman & Littlefield next
month.
HILARIOUS
HINES DOESN'T EVEN READ THE SOURCE
Vince
> Par For The Course.
>
> DSH
I agree its par for your course
Vince
D. Spencer Hines
completely out of context.
KAWHOMP!!!
Read the entire article as I did before I made my first post on Brannigan's
farblondjet snippet.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
From the issue dated March 21, 2003
<http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i28/28b00701.htm>
When Teaching the Ethics of War Is Not Academic
By SHANNON E. FRENCH
I remember watching the 1991 gulf war on television while I was
working toward my Ph.D. in philosophy at Brown University. On philosophical
grounds, I concluded that the war was justified. My study of history and the
just-war tradition persuaded me that Saddam's aggression had to be checked.
I was furious when the coalition forces stopped short of removing Saddam
from power. I knew in my gut that he would pop up again like one of those
gophers in a carnival mallet game. I did not want our troops to have to
return to the desert. What I did not know then was just how directly I would
know and care about those troops by the time that call came.
In 1997, I accepted a tenure-track position in the ethics
section of the department of leadership, ethics, and law at the U.S. Naval
Academy. My students are intelligent, well-rounded, surprisingly earnest,
and extremely likable young people. My six years of teaching philosophy to
these future Navy and Marine Corps officers have made it impossible for me
to see discussion about the ethics of war as a mere academic exercise. The
men and women in my classes have volunteered to be America's warriors. It is
important for all of us to understand what that means.
With that in mind, in the spring of 1998 I developed a new
elective course, "The Code of the Warrior," which in turn inspired my book,
The Code of the Warrior: Exploring Warrior Values Past and Present. The aim
of both the course and the book is to examine the values that are explicit
and implicit within the "warrior ethos" and to try to make sense of those
values in a modern American context. My students and I study the warrior's
codes associated (in fiction or in fact) with the ancient Greeks, the
Romans, the Vikings, the Celts, medieval knights, Zulus, Native Americans,
Chinese monks, and Japanese samurai. We talk about how the purpose of a code
is to restrain warriors, for their own good as much as for the good of
others. The essential element of a warrior's code is that it must set
definite limits on what warriors can and cannot do if they want to continue
to be regarded as warriors, not murderers or cowards. For the warrior who
has such a code, certain actions remain unthinkable, even in the most dire
or extreme circumstances.
Some people might fear that encouraging young warriors to study
the warrior traditions of the past will lead them to become Rambo-like or to
embrace outrageous bigotries and out-of-date ideals. Granted, some of the
qualities that ancient warriors or warrior archetypes possess do not play
well in the 21st century. The key is to select for preservation only what is
consistent with the values cherished by contemporary warrior cultures. For
example, modern American warriors should resurrect only those traditions
that cohere with the letter and spirit of the Constitution they have sworn
to uphold and defend. They can emulate the humility, integrity, commitment
to "might for right," courtesy, and courage of a Round Table knight without
taking on board his acceptance of an undemocratic, stratified society (in
which most of the population is disenfranchised and women and serfs are
treated as property) or his determination to "pursue infidels."
Although warrior traditions may seem outmoded, the genuine
emotional connection of today's warriors to an intentionally idealized
warrior tradition and their sense that they must not betray that legacy is
more important than ever. That connection and devotion may help them summon
the will to show restraint in situations that will sorely tempt them to
throw self-control out the window, for the world is no longer arranged in
such a way that conflicts are likely to arise among great powers that are
evenly matched.
The privileged warriors of today increasingly will find
themselves pitted against adversaries who fight without any rules or
restraints because they see no other way to advance their objectives. These
desperate adversaries are likely to employ methods that are rightfully
viewed as horrific and appalling by the rest of the civilized world, such as
terror attacks on civilian populations and the use of chemical and
biological weapons. Since these adversaries already are willing to die, they
will not be deterred by any threat of punishment for continuing to disregard
the laws of war.
In the spring semester following the attacks of September 11,
2001, and the start of President Bush's "war on terror," I gave an unusual
assignment to my students. I asked them to write essays detailing exactly
why they are different from terrorists. The midshipmen were to spell out as
clearly as possible how the roles they intended to fill as future Navy and
Marine Corps officers are distinct in morally relevant ways from that of,
say, an Al Qaeda operative. They dubbed the assignment "creepy," but gamely
agreed to do it. After they had read their efforts aloud, I gave the project
a twist. I had them exchange papers, and told them each to write a critical
response to their classmate's paper, from the point of view of a terrorist.
Then I had them read those responses aloud.
The midshipmen found the entire exercise very disturbing because
it forced them to reflect on that thin but critical line that separates
warriors from murderers. In their initial essays, several of them stressed
the facts that as members of the U.S. military they will not target innocent
people, and that there is a moral difference between intentionally causing
civilian deaths and doing so unintentionally as the result of attacks on
legitimate military targets, or what is known as "collateral damage."
Here is a segment of an argument from a student in that class:
"It is wrong to kill innocent people even if it does further the cause of
the United States. There are rules to war. ... We learned in 'Naval Law'
[class] about the Law of Armed Conflict and the Rules of Engagement. There
are targets that are acceptable and have 'military value' and there are
targets that are simply killing for the sake of killing. Terrorists see
targets of military value as too difficult to strike. They do not have the
means to strike these targets. They instead will take out the easy targets
for shock value, just to disrupt the lives of those they hate."
The second part of the "Why are you different from a terrorist?"
assignment required my students to try to get inside the heads of those who
commit terrorist acts. It forced them to consider how easy it might be for
someone to rationalize crossing the line between "warrior" and "murderer" in
the interest of what he believes to be a noble cause. As most of the
students recognized, terrorists do not see themselves as murderers. They
believe that they are warriors -- "freedom fighters" struggling against
those they have dubbed their "oppressors." But no matter how they may
justify their actions, if they refuse to accept any rules of war, they
forfeit the right to be regarded as warriors.
While there are many differences among them, warrior codes tend
to share one point of agreement: the insistence that what distinguishes
warriors from murderers is that warriors accept a set of rules governing
when and how they kill. When they are trained for war, warriors are given a
mandate by their society to take lives. But they must learn to take only
certain lives in certain ways, at certain times, and for certain reasons.
Otherwise, they become indistinguishable from murderers and will find
themselves condemned by the very societies they were trained to serve.
Individuals can fight for an objectively bad cause or a corrupt regime and
still be warriors, as long as they have a warrior's code that requires them
to observe the rules of war. There can be no honor in any conflict for those
who believe that they have no moral obligation to restrain their behavior in
any way.
Some of my students reported having trouble understanding how
anyone, no matter what his convictions, could agree to take part in
terrorist operations that are not limited by moral constraints and that
involve intentionally targeting innocent civilians. They wondered: Are the
people who can do these things inhuman monsters? How can they create
meticulous plans to slaughter unsuspecting civilians without being stopped
in their tracks by impossible-to-ignore pangs of conscience?
We discussed the fact that it is unlikely that those who have
been bewitched by the rhetoric of Osama bin Laden and others like him feel
no revulsion at the thought (or in the act) of killing unarmed, helpless
civilians. Rather, it is more probable that they are persuaded that any
apparent pricks of conscience they may feel are not the screams of their
precious humanity hoping to be heard but rather their human weakness
battling against their will to perform their sacred duty. They would
therefore consider it a triumph of will to carry out the charge to kill
without mercy or discrimination.
I gave my students this assignment because they need to
understand how the line between warrior and murderer can be crossed, so they
can avoid crossing it themselves. Unfortunately, it is most difficult for
warriors to keep from slipping over that line when they are fighting against
those who have already crossed it. In his modern classic on the experience
of war, The Warriors: Reflections on Men in Battle, J. Glenn Gray, a U.S.
veteran of World War II, brings home the agony of the warrior who has become
incapable of honoring his enemies and thus is unable to find redemption.
Gray describes how the atrocities committed by Japanese soldiers
(including the torture and murder of prisoners of war and wounded GI's) in
the Pacific theater during World War II led Allied soldiers to view their
enemies as unworthy of any respect or humane treatment. Otherwise
unthinkable actions, such as collecting enemy body parts as "trophies" (a
practice that also occurred in the Vietnam War) and refusing to accept
surrenders, became acceptable within some circles of Allied fighters. As
Gray notes, "The ugliness of war against an enemy conceived to be subhuman
can hardly be exaggerated."
Gray's conclusions match those of psychologists Jonathan Shay,
author of Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character,
and Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, author of On Killing: The Psychological Cost of
Learning to Kill in War and Society. Both Shay and Grossman have worked
extensively with American combat veterans. Their research reveals that the
lasting psychological damage suffered by some veterans (such as debilitating
post-traumatic stress) is most often the result of experiences that are not
simply violent, but which involve what Shay calls the "betrayal of 'what's
right.'" Veterans who believe that they were directly or indirectly party to
immoral or dishonorable behavior (perpetrated by themselves, their comrades,
or their commanders) have the hardest time reclaiming their lives after the
war is over.
It is easier to remain a warrior when fighting other warriors.
When warriors fight murderers, they may be tempted to become like the evil
they hope to destroy. Their only protection is their code of honor. The
professional military ethics that restrain warriors -- that keep them from
targeting those who cannot fight back, from taking pleasure in killing, from
striking harder than is necessary, and that encourage them to offer mercy to
their defeated enemies and even to help rebuild their countries and
communities -- are also their own protection against becoming what they
abhor.
It is not just "see the whites of their eyes" frontline ground
and Special Forces troops who need this protection. Men and women who fight
from a distance -- who drop bombs from planes and shoot missiles from ships
or submarines -- are also at risk of losing their humanity. What threatens
them is the very ease with which they can take lives. As technology
separates individuals from the results of their actions, it cheats them of
the chance to absorb and reckon with the enormity of what they have done.
Killing fellow human beings, even for the noblest cause, should never feel
like nothing more than a game played using the latest advances in virtual
reality. Modern warriors who dehumanize their enemies by equating them with
blips on a computer screen may find the sense that they are part of an
honorable undertaking far too fragile to sustain. It is important for
warriors to show respect for the inherent worth and dignity of their
opponents. Even long-distance warriors can achieve that by acknowledging
that some of the "targets" they destroy are in fact human beings, not demons
or vermin or empty statistics.
In class, I try to stress the point that once that thin line
between warrior and murderer has been crossed, the harm to the individual
who crossed it may be severe. In response to this, a student in my 2002
"Knowing Your Enemy" seminar raised the issue of whether a warrior who had
crossed the line and allowed himself to become a murderer could ever find
redemption and, in a sense, regain his warrior status.
My response was that I believe it depends a great deal on the
individual's own reaction to having crossed that line. If he refuses to
examine the immorality of his actions, he may do further damage to his
character. He may tell himself that it was naive ever to have clung to a
code -- that there is no real difference between, for example, killing an
enemy combatant in the thick of a firefight and killing an unarmed civilian
in cold blood. On the other hand, if he rejects his ignoble behavior rather
than excusing it, he may be able to restore his sense of honor and renew his
commitment to the path of restraint.
In 1989, my father had a conversation with a World War II
fighter pilot who knew firsthand what it feels like both to see an enemy
cross the line from warrior to murderer and, in response, to cross the line
himself. The veteran described an experience that had haunted him for more
than 40 years. He and his friend Jimmy had been in a dogfight with three
German ME-109s. Jimmy was hit and bailed out. One of the German pilots shot
him while he was drifting down in his parachute. The veteran was horrified
and went after the German pilot, forced him to bail out, and killed him in
his parachute. My father asked the veteran how it had felt to take that
revenge. At first, the man claimed that it had felt good. A moment later,
however, he admitted, "No. ... OK, ... I cried."
Legend has it that when a Spartan mother sent her son off to
war, she would say to him, "Come back with your shield, or on it." If a
warrior came back without his shield, it meant that he had laid it down in
order to break ranks and run from battle. He was supposed to use his shield
to protect the man next to him in formation, so to abandon his shield was
not only to be a coward but also to break faith with his comrades. To come
back on his shield was to be carried back either wounded or dead. Thus the
adage meant that the young warrior should fight bravely, maintain his
martial discipline, and return with both his body and his honor intact.
The warriors' mothers who spoke this line were not heartless --
far from it. It was spoken from great love. They wanted their children to
return with their sense of self-respect intact, feeling justifiably proud of
how they had performed under pressure, not tortured and destroyed by guilt
and shame. To come back with their shields was to come back still feeling
like warriors, not like cowards or murderers. The Spartan mothers' message
is timeless. Everyone who cares about the welfare of warriors wants them not
only to live through whatever fighting they must face, but also to have
lives worth living after the fighting is done.
The warrior's code is the shield that guards our warriors'
humanity. Without it, they are no good to themselves or to those with whom
and for whom they fight. Without it, they will find no way back from war. I
have dear friends -- many of them former students and Naval Academy
colleagues -- who are currently in harm's way. They are our pilots,
surface-warfare officers, submariners, Navy SEALs, and Marines. Come May,
more of my current students will join them. When and if they go into combat,
I want them to be able to return from war intact in body and soul. I want
all of them, every last one, to come back with their shields.
D. Spencer Hines
>> Brannigan, in concert with many Angry Left-Wing Academics, suffers under
>> the grave misconception that men and women in the Armed Forces are
>> "grunts" -- not very smart, "just following orders" ---- and certainly
>> not creative, independent thinkers. -- [DSH]
>
> But where there is an independently thinking warrior, thinking is all
> he can do outside the scope of his orders, for the military system
> RELIES on curtailing individual initiative... [sop]
Nonsense.
> The military is an INHIBITOR of personal initiative by design. [sop]
Utter Blather.
Personal Initiative is Highly Prized in both officers and enlisted men and
women.
> It is tantamount to imprisoning one's intellect. [sop]
Twaddle. Nothing of the sort is the case.
The writer of that swill supra has obviously never had much contact with
WARRIORS in the FIELD -- in the WILD -- just with BUREAUCRATIC MANAGERS
inside the Beltway...
A Totally Different Breed.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
Billzz
You're in my plonk file because you make stupid leaps of illogic, and quote
bad Latin. What I said was that the service academies are now training
managers, not warriors. Here's part of my DD214..
13. DECORATIONS, MEDALS, BADGES, CITATIONS, AND CAMPAIGN RIBBONS AWARDED
OR AUTHORIZED (ALL PERIODS OF SERVICE)
Bronze Star Medal//Meritorious Service Medal//Air Medal//National Defense
Service Medal//Vietnam Service Medal//Army Service Ribbon//Overseas Service
Ribbon(3)//Republic Of Vietnam Campaign Medal//Overseas Service Bars
(2)//Republic of Vietnam Cross of Gallantry Unit Citation with
Palm//Republic of Vietnam Armed Forces Honor Medal First Class
18. Remarks
ITEM 13 CONT’D: //Legion of Merit//NOTHING FOLLOWS
-stuff snipped-
D. Spencer Hines
We need more WARRIORS and fewer insipid BUREAUCRATIC MANAGERS of the
"Billzz" Ilk -- Washington Warriors -- and those who are trying to create
more of them at the service academies. All you have to do is read his posts
to see that.
Thousands of Army types did Vietnam tours, got their tickets punched, and
collected all sorts of geedunk medals -- including the Bronze Star -- they
were handed out like candy.
I was offered one, told to write myself up for it, but turned it down
because it was a farce.
Look at the medals John Kerry got for a four-month tour.
Ridiculous, as the Swift Boat Veterans proved.
Medals given out now are much more controlled and earned...
And that's A Good Thing.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Semper Fidelis
Vincent Brannigan
> Once again, Pogue Brannigan takes a pratfall -- by quoting something
> completely out of context.
>
keep dancing it cant cover your naked bits
teh record speaks for itself
vince
redc1c4
and you served with who, where, and when?
redc1c4,
just curious, but knowing the answer already. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
tankfixer
willia...@hotmail.co.uk says...
>
> <gfjz...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:sG5%j.5423$jA.237@trndny09...
> >
> >
> > So billz according to you, the military academy's don't produce warriors.
> > They make managers.
> >
> > No wonder you army idiots keep being defeated by untrained, uneducated
> > desert dwellers and farmers.
>
> Define 'defeated' here please.
It's how our drug using friend feels every day ?
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"
Tiglath
>
> The writer of that swill supra has obviously never had much contact with
> WARRIORS in the FIELD -- in the WILD -- just with BUREAUCRATIC MANAGERS
> inside the Beltway...
>
Warriors in the wild? Where, who?
The vast majority of warriors are not "in the wild" they are in their
respective units, and their lives are highly regulated by others.
Their schedule and location is not up to them, nor is what to wear,
what to eat, or when to go see their loved ones. They are cogs of in
a military unit. And if they don't like it they can't quit on the
spot, even if they have plenty of "fuck you" money in the bank.
If their initiatives are not endorsed by their superiors they go
nowhere, they are SUBORDINATE and unfree compared to any civilian.
Mr. Hines himself has sacrificed much of the capacity to think for
himself, to some benefit for the country, one hopes. He is quite
content to follow party leaders into the quicksand as if they were his
generalissimos for life, even ineloquent, blundering ones.
His lack of taste for evidence and his penchant for making gratuitous
claims from authority indicate that he spent his formative years being
told what to think and believe. It made him an avid Kool-aid drinker
for life.
tankfixer
@drunkenbastards.org.ies says...
> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
> >
> > "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
> > news:174aac23-e2f5-4116...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > > On May 25, 2:42 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
> > > Brannigan. Hard Intellectual & Practical Work. Very Difficult.
> > >>
> > >> Brannigan, in concert with many Angry Left-Wing Academics, suffers under
> > >> the
> > >> grave misconception that men and women in the Armed Forces are
> > >> "grunts" --
> > >> not very smart, "just following orders" ---- and certainly not creative,
> > >> independent thinkers.
> > >>
> >
> > the difference between left wingers and right wingers is that rightwinger
> > push for war and left wingers actually show up for it.
> > there are no left wing chickenhawks., that is solely the province of the
> > right
>
> and you served with who, where, and when?
How would he ever know who he serviced ?
The alleys are dark in the Tenderloin district....
Raymond O'Hara
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
news:MPG.22a7cdabe...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> In article <483E2C12...@drunkenbastards.org.ies>, redc1c4
> The alleys are dark in the Tenderloin district....
>
do tell?
you sound like the voice of experience.
you and the red are both fake namers who are very long on claims....
tankfixer
oh...@hotmail.com says...
>
> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> news:MPG.22a7cdabe...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> > In article <483E2C12...@drunkenbastards.org.ies>, redc1c4
> > How would he ever know who he serviced ?
> > The alleys are dark in the Tenderloin district....
> >
>
> do tell?
> you sound like the voice of experience.
Nope, just from what I read.
And you didn't even bother to deny it either.
> you and the red are both fake namers who are very long on claims....
Fake namers ?
Like your name is really ray ohare
--
Raymond O'Hara
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> In article <Vc6dnZkXkKBMZaPV...@rcn.net>, raymond-
> oh...@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.22a7cdabe...@nntp.earthlink.net...
>> > In article <483E2C12...@drunkenbastards.org.ies>, redc1c4
>> > How would he ever know who he serviced ?
>> > The alleys are dark in the Tenderloin district....
>> >
>>
>> do tell?
>> you sound like the voice of experience.
>
> Nope, just from what I read.
> And you didn't even bother to deny it either.
is your fantasy,visions of sailors in back alleys was the imagery your mind
conjured up.
>
>
>> you and the red are both fake namers who are very long on claims....
>
> Fake namers ?
> Like your name is really ray ohare
>
no, its ray o'hara and yes it is.
Tiglath
>
> Actually, a warrior has a lot of individual freedom. A soldier
> doesn't as much.
A distinction without a difference. Next please.
tankfixer
oh...@hotmail.com says...
>
> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> news:MPG.22a8ff053...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> > In article <Vc6dnZkXkKBMZaPV...@rcn.net>, raymond-
> > oh...@hotmail.com says...
> >>
> >> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.22a7cdabe...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> >> > In article <483E2C12...@drunkenbastards.org.ies>, redc1c4
> >> > How would he ever know who he serviced ?
> >> > The alleys are dark in the Tenderloin district....
> >> >
> >>
> >> do tell?
> >> you sound like the voice of experience.
> >
> > Nope, just from what I read.
> > And you didn't even bother to deny it either.
>
> is your fantasy,visions of sailors in back alleys was the imagery your mind
> conjured up.
Funny, i never mentioned sailors, you did...
> >
> >
> >> you and the red are both fake namers who are very long on claims....
> >
> > Fake namers ?
> > Like your name is really ray ohare
> >
>
> no, its ray o'hara and yes it is.
Sure
redc1c4
<poke>
redc1c4,
like you know anything about being either. %-)
deem...@aol.com
To you.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
>
> Both Shay and Grossman have worked
> extensively with American combat veterans. Their research reveals that
> the lasting psychological damage suffered by some veterans (such as
> debilitating post-traumatic stress) is most often the result of
> experiences that are not simply violent, but which involve what Shay
> calls the "betrayal of 'what's right.'" Veterans who believe that they
> were directly or indirectly party to immoral or dishonorable behavior
> (perpetrated by themselves, their comrades, or their commanders) have
> the hardest time reclaiming their lives after the war is over.
Well said! "betrayal of 'what's right'"
;-)
> http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i28/28b00701.htm
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
definition:
murder - the unjustifiable and intentional killing of people, NO EXCEPTIONS.
murderer - any person who participates in perpetrating murder, NO EXCEPTIONS.
Each person has an individual responsibility to determine if his actions are moral, and
no government or army may ever take that responsibility away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------