US Troops are "Warriors" now?

[DeBunkem]

Yes this is religion, too, IMO. I'm puzzled by the effort of the Pentagon to implant the idea of US troops as "warriors." I find it repulsive. What other advanced nation is doing this? Is "soldier" too tame? "Warrior" connotates bloodthirsty barbarian hordes such as Goths, Huns, and Mongols. "Soldier" connotates the armies os civilized nations with advanced laws, such as Rome, England, and the (former) USA. With reports on how much the US military is becoming infiltrated with militant Fundamentalists, (i.e., the USAF cadet scandals)i would suggest a sinister long-term strategy.
Which sounds better next to "Holy"? Holy Soldiers or Holy Warriors? I'm just sayin'. Holy Moly I hope I'm wrong but it would also fit the direction that AIPAC is pushing us. Obama said their control over our policy is "sacrosanct."

Here's a picture of Pastor John Hagee (Google 'im) forya:

[East of Eden]

No more could all those people be universally coerced or bribed to keep all their mouths shut. That way lies madness, my friend. That's even more wildly unlikely than the conspiracy itself.

WARNING - COMPLETE THREAD HIJACK. Since this is a religion forum, I thought I'd point out that the above statement is exactly why it is highly unlikely there was a conspiracy to falsely claim that Jesus rose from the dead.

BTW, good post, cnorman18. I'm still waiting to hear how the government would have gained from 9/11, and how they would have hoped to keep the alleged plot secret, as you alluded.

[Wyvern]

Believe my words or reject them out of hand. All I ask is that the reader do his or her homework. Dig a little.

I'm willing to do some homework, all I need is one bit of info from you and that is what unit were you attached to in '72-'73.

[MagusYanam]

Yes this is religion, too, IMO. I'm puzzled by the effort of the Pentagon to implant the idea of US troops as "warriors." I find it repulsive. What other advanced nation is doing this? Is "soldier" too tame? "Warrior" connotates bloodthirsty barbarian hordes such as Goths, Huns, and Mongols. "Soldier" connotates the armies os civilized nations with advanced laws, such as Rome, England, and the (former) USA.

I personally feel that 'soldiers' are worse than 'warriors', but that's from my study of the history of antiquity - the Germanic tribes of Northern Europe and the Turkic and Mongol tribes of Central Asia and Siberia generally did not wage pre-emptive wars of conquest (the vast majority of their fighting being of the horse-rustling family / tribal feud variety). The barbarian 'warriors' mounted these massive marauding campaigns which 'civilised' people came to fear only when they were slaughtered and evicted from their homes, almost always by those peoples who considered themselves 'civilised' enough to have 'soldiers'. The Huns couldn't have happened if the Qin and Han Emperors hadn't fought constant wars of expansion against them, assimilating them or pushing them west, and the Vandals couldn't have happened if they hadn't been pressured by the imperial expansion and assimilation of Rome and (later) the 'wandering' rampage of the Huns.

As to richardP's stance on US-orchestrated coups, as a Christian I am called to oppose all forms of imperial violence. To side with the British government against India or the US government against Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, Granada or (most recently) Iraq is to side with Pontius Pilate over against Christ - choosing the way of the sword over the way of the cross.

Within Christianity there are two perspectives (and only two) which have the full weight and authority of Scripture and Church tradition behind them. The first and most commonly held by the Church Fathers is that of principled opposition to all forms of violence and the practice of total nonviolence. The second is that of just war as articulated by S. Augustine of Hippo - proportional, with right intention and declared by an accountable power as a last resort (not pre-emptively) in pursuit of a just cause. No war can be considered just unless it has been publicly considered against and conforms to all of these standards.

As to the 9/11 conspiracy - I can't really say it better than cnorman18 already has. It is irrational to lend such heavy credence to conjecture rather than to established facts.

[East of Eden]

As to richardP's stance on US-orchestrated coups, as a Christian I am called to oppose all forms of imperial violence. To side with the British government against India or the US government against Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, Granada or (most recently) Iraq is to side with Pontius Pilate over against Christ - choosing the way of the sword over the way of the cross.

Were our WWII efforts also imperial, siding with the US government against Germany, or as you put it, choosing the sword over the way of the cross?

Any reason you didn't include Bosnia in the 90s in your list?

[McCulloch]

Were our WWII efforts also imperial, siding with the US government against Germany, or as you put it, choosing the sword over the way of the cross?

If you look at the World Wars in Europe in context, then yes, WW I was certainly a clash of the imperialist cultures, which the US and Canada would have been better to stay away from. The winning imperialist powers of that conflict created massive discontent and economic ruin for the former Axis powers, setting the stage for the extremist totalitarian regimes of the Fascists and Nazis. These powers then became a threat to world peace and had to be brought under control.

[East of Eden]

Were our WWII efforts also imperial, siding with the US government against Germany, or as you put it, choosing the sword over the way of the cross?

If you look at the World Wars in Europe in context, then yes, WW I was certainly a clash of the imperialist cultures, which the US and Canada would have been better to stay away from. The winning imperialist powers of that conflict created massive discontent and economic ruin for the former Axis powers, setting the stage for the extremist totalitarian regimes of the Fascists and Nazis. These powers then became a threat to world peace and had to be brought under control.

My question was about WWII. I also would agree we didn't have much business in WWI.

[McCulloch]

My question was about WWII. I also would agree we didn't have much business in WWI.

I would agree, by the time that the US got into WWII in Europe, when the fighting was about two fifths through and Germany declared war on the US, it was too late for any other course of action. WWII was by that time a wholly unavoidable calamity, the necessary result of decades, if not centuries, of stupidity, bumbling, bad diplomacy and European imperialist rivalries. If the US and the other victorious powers had the vision and foresight shown at the close of WWII when they sat down in Versailles, in 1919, many lives would have been spared.

[East of Eden]

My question was about WWII. I also would agree we didn't have much business in WWI.

I would agree, by the time that the US got into WWII in Europe, when the fighting was about two fifths through and Germany declared war on the US, it was too late for any other course of action. WWII was by that time a wholly unavoidable calamity, the necessary result of decades, if not centuries, of stupidity, bumbling, bad diplomacy and European imperialist rivalries. If the US and the other victorious powers had the vision and foresight shown at the close of WWII when they sat down in Versailles, in 1919, many lives would have been spared.

My earlier point was if the idea against war isn't absolute, then the justification for other wars are a matter of debate.

For a completely useless war I nominate the Spanish-American one.

[MagusYanam]

Were our WWII efforts also imperial, siding with the US government against Germany, or as you put it, choosing the sword over the way of the cross?

Any reason you didn't include Bosnia in the 90s in your list?

I didn't mention WWII, did I, so why bring it up? I call Godwin.

It is disingenuous of the hawkish party, as well as dishonouring the memories of those who actually fought in WWII, to continue to invoke the war to browbeat doves and to serve as licence for infinitely less just and less worthy conflicts. I agree with McCulloch that WWII was an historical inevitability - the resentment of the German people after their treatment at the conclusion of WWI combined with appeasement policies (notably of Britain) and the growing bellicosity of the Nazi regime all conspired to make it so. It was, as much as possible, a responsive war of last resort, though as I said before there are two possible viewpoints on it within the context of the Christian tradition.

Not so with Vietnam (the Tonkin incident having been staged) or with the various unilateral interventions in the Western Hemisphere during the 80's. The Bosnia bombings should also be on the list, since it was not a responsive war of last resort, and Clinton apparently didn't understand the meaning of the term 'proportionality'.

[East of Eden]

Were our WWII efforts also imperial, siding with the US government against Germany, or as you put it, choosing the sword over the way of the cross?

Any reason you didn't include Bosnia in the 90s in your list?

I didn't mention WWII, did I, so why bring it up? I call Godwin.

I can see why you wouldn't want to answer the WWII question. If you agree that war is sometimes needed, you also have to agree reasonable people can disagree about other conflicts without you demonizing them. For someone with a sig line about not judging you sure like to do it.