Druidry & Military Service?

[Hennie]

Hennie, I'm sort of shocked that you can have such solidified opinions on what the Iraqi people feel or think when you've never even been over there?

Well to name one source : there was this refugee from Iraq, a medical doctor, who said life under Saddam seemed more attractive to most of his countrymen, than the chaos with the suicide killings etc. This was about three years ago. The guy was interviewed on the question why he fled Iraq. This is just one of many (millions and counting) Iraqis who have fled their country.

and I could probably name a few of them who threatened to sneak into my seabag the week that I left and come home with me to America.

Of course almost anyone would rather leave a battle field than have to live under threats.

[Avariel]

How about refusing to fight in an invasion to a foreign country driven only by economic interests?

It's definitely a complicated issue, but an example I tried to illustrate earlier is that soldiers are rarely called on to fight only when they want to. Once you decide to serve you don't have a choice as far as what wars your country gets involved in.

However! Being a part of a war, even one that is unjust, gives you the opportunity to make a difference in your own right, however small, bcause you are there in the middle of the problem and can thus affect it more readily. Even if the cause is unjust, or the motives of our leaders unjust, that does not mean that the men and women who go over there don't try in every aspect that they can to make life better for the people over there and to do some good. If the choice was to join up with a cause that was unjust and do some marginal good, or to stay where you were and do nothing (at least in the situation overseas) then many people are willing to risk being attached to a cause that is unfavorably looked upon in order to have that opportunity to change people's lives.

[Avariel]

Hennie, I'm sort of shocked that you can have such solidified opinions on what the Iraqi people feel or think when you've never even been over there?

Well to name one source : there was this refugee from Iraq, a medical doctor, who said life under Saddam seemed more attractive to most of his countrymen, than the chaos with the suicide killings etc. This was about three years ago. The guy was interviewed on the question why he fled Iraq. This is just one of many (millions and counting) Iraqis who have fled their country.

Most of his countrymen, or the Sunni's that flourished under his regime? The only people that had a good life under Saddam were members of that faction, and they were a minority; it was very similar, from what I could see, to the Albanian/Serbian minority-opressing-the-majority situation, and in THAT case we were practically regurgitating sympathy for the poor oppressed ones. What's different now? Oil is involved? How does that simple addition to the equation completely negate everything else that was wrong in that part of the world?

If you had acknowledged what I said in my last post, I mentioned that the people that lived in the area that I was in were filled with a renewed sense of hope and a determination to actually fight for freedom instead of accepting what their lives were like and living in fear in order to simply stay alive. Safety is always preferred over chaos, for everyone, but when I was there those people had no hope and behaved almost like whipped animals; us being there and helping them in our capacity rejuvenated their sense of purpose and desire for freedom, and YES, fighting back against those who oppress you causes chaos, death, and destruction. Our own country's history is written in such blood, as are many other places (Celtic countries included, I think Scotland/Ireland have had bloodier times gaining their freedom than we have here in America.) Sitting back and simply letting it happen around you is a pretty awful way to live...but it ensures safety and order, at least.

[Aelfarh]

It's definitely a complicated issue, but an example I tried to illustrate earlier is that soldiers are rarely called on to fight only when they want to. Once you decide to serve you don't have a choice as far as what wars your country gets involved in.

However! Being a part of a war, even one that is unjust, gives you the opportunity to make a difference in your own right, however small, bcause you are there in the middle of the problem and can thus affect it more readily. Even if the cause is unjust, or the motives of our leaders unjust, that does not mean that the men and women who go over there don't try in every aspect that they can to make life better for the people over there and to do some good. If the choice was to join up with a cause that was unjust and do some marginal good, or to stay where you were and do nothing (at least in the situation overseas) then many people are willing to risk being attached to a cause that is unfavorably looked upon in order to have that opportunity to change people's lives.

Fair enough. That is a good stance, as even in extreme examples as the Nazi military there were german soldiers who tried to do that, but I think that the ones who left their work when their realize the unjust of the war were closer to the maxim "the truth against the world" that the ones who stayed. Personally I would refuse to do any work that go against the truth and honour of my values, that's why I can't support the stance of having no choice but to fight the wars your country gets involved in even if they are not just.

[Avariel]

It's definitely a complicated issue, but an example I tried to illustrate earlier is that soldiers are rarely called on to fight only when they want to. Once you decide to serve you don't have a choice as far as what wars your country gets involved in.

However! Being a part of a war, even one that is unjust, gives you the opportunity to make a difference in your own right, however small, bcause you are there in the middle of the problem and can thus affect it more readily. Even if the cause is unjust, or the motives of our leaders unjust, that does not mean that the men and women who go over there don't try in every aspect that they can to make life better for the people over there and to do some good. If the choice was to join up with a cause that was unjust and do some marginal good, or to stay where you were and do nothing (at least in the situation overseas) then many people are willing to risk being attached to a cause that is unfavorably looked upon in order to have that opportunity to change people's lives.

Fair enough. That is a good stance, as even in extreme examples as the Nazi military there were german soldiers who tried to do that, but I think that the ones who left their work when their realize the unjust of the war were closer to the maxim "the truth against the world" that the ones who stayed. Personally I would refuse to do any work that go against the truth and honour of my values, that's why I can't support the stance of having no choice but to fight the wars your country gets involved in even if they are not just.

LOL and that's not a bad stance to have at all! And it's one of the many reasons why i left the military as soon as I could, and why still to this day I have a bad taste in my mouth over many things that happened while I was in. But I don't regret joining for the reasons I stated above, for I did have many opportunities to do some good even in the bad positions I was in, so in my mind it was worth being there, and worth joining.

[Hennie]

Most of his countrymen, or the Sunni's that flourished under his regime?

He said with emphasis : "the ordinary people living anywhere in Iraq" (I can't quote it exactly anymore).
He fled because of the violence going on and because of the fact that he couldn't get any medical supplies what made it virtually impossible to do his job as a doctor.

[Corwen]

Deaths under Saddam were running at around 25,000 per year. Deaths caused by the US/British invasion in the last 6 years are currently at 100,000 or so documented deaths, though the total deaths are probably considerably higher, in the region of 150,000 at least. This puts Saddam and the Allies roughly on a par with each other.

[Hennie]

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/ ... =49e486426

[Michael C. Page]

I thought the purpose of this thread was to debate whether or not a Druidic lifestyle was compatible with Military Service. While the current subject matter is no doubt fascinating, it only focuses upon one or two current conflicts and the mistakes made by administrations, which are no longer in power. That said, I wonder if said subject should be split off into its own thread, so that we may resume discussing the original intent of the thread.

Blessings - Mike

[Aelfarh]

I thought the purpose of this thread was to debate whether or not a Druidic lifestyle was compatible with Military Service. While the current subject matter is no doubt fascinating, it only focuses upon one or two current conflicts and the mistakes made by administrations, which are no longer in power. That said, I wonder if said subject should be split off into its own thread, so that we may resume discussing the original intent of the thread.

Blessings - Mike

True, but I see the relationship anyway. Is the druidic lifestyle compatible with working for armies of governments who make wars based on economic interests of a few?

Let me put an analogy. Will be the druidic lifestyle compatible with working for a company who destroys natural resources or even supports violence in developing countries? like THIS example?

[Michael C. Page]

I thought the purpose of this thread was to debate whether or not a Druidic lifestyle was compatible with Military Service. While the current subject matter is no doubt fascinating, it only focuses upon one or two current conflicts and the mistakes made by administrations, which are no longer in power. That said, I wonder if said subject should be split off into its own thread, so that we may resume discussing the original intent of the thread.

Blessings - Mike

True, but I see the relationship anyway. Is the druidic lifestyle compatible with working for armies of governments who make wars based on economic interests of a few?
Let me put an analogy. Will be the druidic lifestyle compatible with working for a company who destroys natural resources or even supports violence in developing countries? like THIS example?

Well then in that case Aelfahr we can still have Two threads: 1) A Druid and Military Service compatibility debate and 2) Correct actions during Peace and War for Druids debate (focusing on the current Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts). I think both debates would be quite educational if they were separate, but as it is both issues are clouding and confusing each other since they are in the same thread.

These are both very interesting issues and I, for one, would like to see them both discussed in a manner which these issues deserve. Therefore, I have pm’d the Host of this Forum to see what he wants to do and wether or not he will ask the Admin if we should separate the Thread.

Until then, Bright Blessings and have a great weekend – Mike
[/b]

[Hennie]

Well, I never... Teachers have no relationship with /influence on the school their working and their pupils? Butchers have no relation with cattle? Ah, well, yes, any druid can do the job they like, and every druid may ask what fellow druids think about their job in relation to thoughts on druidry but I think you can't see any job without the perspective on how it interacts with society.

Edit : That is what I like about Avariel. She doesn't give abstract talks about "service to the people/country etc", but indeed gives the harsh, hard facts of the battlefield.

[pangurban]

With all due respect Hennie to most of us it is an abstract idea as we have no experience of the battle field. And even though I do not disagree with military service I pray we never have to gain that experience. I wonder as well how many people who are giving their opinions on this thread have the said experience.

[Maena]

Okay, whether or not a Druidic lifestyle is compatible with Military Service. - Depends
As Avariel stated somewhere: sometimes all the choices are ugly. That should be a basic Druid stance towards this matter IMHO.

There are several choices and I believe it is more about how you make such a decision, than which one is the "right" one. As what is right always depends on the circumstances.

A few words on my view on pacifism.
Doing no harm to another human being. That means regardless of the consequences. Anybody with half a brain can realize that because of non-interference a lot more harm may be done. It is a leap of faith. Like lowering your arms, hoping the other will do the same. Believing in the eventually mutual striving of human beings to simply live and prosper. If you don't give the other a chance you will never know. It bothers me that some may believe a pacifist to be an apathetic coward. If you are a conscious and moral pacifist, you also feel the weight of your NON-interference on your shoulders.

Wishing to protect your country or even help others in need is noble. But only possible if one has faith in their government and military. Many may be willing to fight for a just cause. Reality is that things aren't black and white. There is no absolute radiantly just crusade.(Excuse the wordplay)
It's very hard to make out if something is justified or not, if it will do more good or bad, and of course it depends which side you're on. You can't get all the information and can you trust the information you do have? A spiritual person will weigh these things to come up with their answer. But also be open to reflect the situation and adjust their views accordingly.

A long time ago I thought about joining the air force. For various noble reasons: having quit uni, not having a job or a home and wanting to cruise in an F16. Not believing the Dutch would ever really go to war anyway. But I gave it some more thought. What if you end up in a bomber and you don't know what is down there? I have a strong tendency to make up my own mind and a distrusting nature, not the right stuff I concluded.

[Seeker]

I would agree with Mike - both topics are worthy of debate on their own. I will be asking to have this thread split so we can discuss both on their own merits...

Face the Winds,

Seeker

[Corwen]

I suspect that any discussion of Druidry and Military service will inevitably come back to a discussion of particular wars, otherwise it would be a very theoretical and ungrounded conversation.

[Aelfarh]

I agree with Corwen, I think they are intermixed and it's difficult to discuss one ignoring the other.

[DJ Droood]

I agree with Corwen, I think they are intermixed and it's difficult to discuss one ignoring the other.

I agree with Corwen and Aelfarh....and why the sudden need (threat) of the heavy hand of moderation in a conversation that has been going on well for 4 pages?....it is summer, people...go out for a bike ride if a DHP thread is getting you upset.

[Seeker]

Upset? Threat?
I believe you are misunderstanding what we have suggested - I also think the discussion is very important and is going well. But, I also believe that the topics might be discussed as separate issues to allow more people to participate.

The suggestion had nothing to do with any type of "punitive" measure; as a matter of fact, it really was brought up because the depth of the discussion has expanded so well.

go out for a bike ride if a DHP thread is getting you upset.

I'm way passed anything on this site getting me upset.

Been there, done that...

[DJ Droood]

yea? I wonder how Brianna feels about having her thread tampered with? It has been chugging along nicely for over a year now without the need for intervention. Who feels like they can't participate? Can they not just start their own thread, with whatever discussion limitations they desire?