I stole it when you were at my house.G26ster wrote:I checked my wallet and do not have one of these cards.Jumping Frog wrote:
Laying down the "Vietnam viet" card is not a lifetime free pass to be an idiot either.
Search found 2 matches
- Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:38 pm
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: Vietnam Vets
- Replies: 22
- Views: 2657
Re: Vietnam Vets
- Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:09 pm
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: Vietnam Vets
- Replies: 22
- Views: 2657
Re: Vietnam Vets
My dad was a confirmed pacifist after his WW2 experience—WIA at Iwo Jima, as a 2nd Lt in the Marine Corps. But later, in the mid 1970s, he did try to kill a man at a Caltech dinner party. The other guy was drunken visiting Polish poet and had just pimp-slapped my mother who was seated next to him. My dad was on him in a flash and had his knee in the other guy's larynx, trying to crush it, when a couple of other guys pulled him off the dude. He later told me that it kind of scared him because he didn't even think about it. The other guy hit my mom, and my dad cleared a dining table in one jump, landing on the guy's chest and taking him down, where he went to work with his knee. He told me he didn't even realize what he was doing until he got pulled off the guy.
My point is that even people with deep seated non-violent convictions—and my dad was a sincere pacifist—will do what they have to do when the flag goes up. The efficacy to which they do it is simply a product of their training. My dad was merely doing as he had been trained by Uncle Sam's Misguided Children 30 years before—not to brawl at the dinner table, but to protect those who are valuable to him.
I've read Dave Grossman's books, and I too heartily recommend them. I was talking just this morning at church with a friend of mine who is retired military, and he mentioned that he was a member of Oath Keepers. We were both saying that there are a whole host of questions that any intelligent person much answer in advance for themselves, and then steel themselves for those possibilities; because if they have to answer those questions while in the breach, they won't be able to do so. We were discussing both the execution of unconstitutional or illegal orders, as well as the predetermined decision to take a life if that is what is necessary to stop an attack. And that is where the vet in the OP link is off-kilter. Armed teachers aren't being asked to go to combat and kill enemy soldiers in offensive action. Rather, they are being asked to be willing to defend themselves and their precious charges until reinforcements arrive. That is not merely a semantic difference. A soldier—even a disciplined and well trained soldier—may have trouble initiating fire on an enemy soldier the first time, particularly if that enemy is far enough away that our soldier may not feel particularly threatened by him. But when out soldier is ambushed out of the blue and feels like he might die if he doesn't get into the fight, my guess is that he will fight first, and deal with the aftermath later. And that aftermath might be anything from giddiness to be alive to self-loathing at having killed another human being.... but in either case, our soldier is ALIVE, and that's what counts most.
My point is that even people with deep seated non-violent convictions—and my dad was a sincere pacifist—will do what they have to do when the flag goes up. The efficacy to which they do it is simply a product of their training. My dad was merely doing as he had been trained by Uncle Sam's Misguided Children 30 years before—not to brawl at the dinner table, but to protect those who are valuable to him.
I've read Dave Grossman's books, and I too heartily recommend them. I was talking just this morning at church with a friend of mine who is retired military, and he mentioned that he was a member of Oath Keepers. We were both saying that there are a whole host of questions that any intelligent person much answer in advance for themselves, and then steel themselves for those possibilities; because if they have to answer those questions while in the breach, they won't be able to do so. We were discussing both the execution of unconstitutional or illegal orders, as well as the predetermined decision to take a life if that is what is necessary to stop an attack. And that is where the vet in the OP link is off-kilter. Armed teachers aren't being asked to go to combat and kill enemy soldiers in offensive action. Rather, they are being asked to be willing to defend themselves and their precious charges until reinforcements arrive. That is not merely a semantic difference. A soldier—even a disciplined and well trained soldier—may have trouble initiating fire on an enemy soldier the first time, particularly if that enemy is far enough away that our soldier may not feel particularly threatened by him. But when out soldier is ambushed out of the blue and feels like he might die if he doesn't get into the fight, my guess is that he will fight first, and deal with the aftermath later. And that aftermath might be anything from giddiness to be alive to self-loathing at having killed another human being.... but in either case, our soldier is ALIVE, and that's what counts most.