Should Old Veterans Forgive Their Former Enemies?

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

This has to be short as I have to get ready to go. Hopefully I can do better latter.

I would say a soldier is responsible for what he has an ability to be responsible for.
It is in the nature of every state that it needs coercive power. As even a tyrannical regime serves the necessary purpose of doing justice and protecting the weak("the police of this land are theives but at least they allow no competition"-Kim, Rudyard Kipling), it is not necessarily wrong to serve such a regime in this capacity. But it can become so. And it is often safest to avoid what one can in such circumstances.
A soldier is seldom told blatantly that he is fighting unjustly. And his limited knowledge of the situation allows him no way of judging it. And in most circumstances it is better to obey as the obedience of those who bear arms to society is usually more important then the possibility that he might be fighting unjustly. However a soldier can tell if a specific order is wrong. For instance a German soldier may not be able to tell that it is wrong to attack Russia. He should know at least that it is wrong to shoot Russian children out of hand.
Being a soldier is like being a lawyer. A lawyer is obliged to assume his client is right in the absence of proof to the contrary. However if such proof does arrive problems do arrive. As that seldom happens, Shakespeare was partially right-but only partially.

As an addition, St. Thomas Aquinas once pointed out that the right attitude toward authority was to think of it as "for want of something better". That is if you have no way of knowing it might be better to obey as you cannot rebuild civilization every generation. But when more evidence comes the situation changes. In other words authority should be a springboard not a prison.
This is of course regarding philosophy. But it has adaptations to what I said. The need for soldiers to obey is pressing. Therefore soldiers should obey until there is a greater reason to disobey.

[General Mayhem]

Originally Posted by Kiwiwriter

I'm always amused when businesses and organizations call themselves "a family." They usually do that when the boss is in trouble, and they need the employees to rally around the boss.
However, I rarely hear of families sitting down at the dinner table, and the father getting up to tell the youngest son or daughter, "Times have been tough this year, so we have to let you go. Please clean out your room, pack your bags, and leave. You've been laid off."

By God Kiwi you always get right to the chorus matey,
The business moto of today is that of Captain Jack Sparrow minus the humor "take all you can, give nothing back."
You just gave me a great idea for a cartoon.
As everyone seems to end up saying, it's up to the vets.
I would never tell anyone who served in combat wha to feel about their opponents, though I may disagree. The veterans who are willing to sit and break bread with thier brothers in arms are usually the ones who felt they were engaged in a "fair" fight. I don't think allied seaman who saw their comrades machine gunned by U-boats while they floated helpless in the sea are as forgiving as those who were "just" torpedoed. I don't think there is a whole lot of forgiveness by german and japanese civilians who lost loved ones in terror bombings. POW's can be "forgiven" for not forgiven. That and all victims of war crimes are in a very different category. The biblical concept of forgiveness isn't just about the forgiven, but about the release from the terrible weight of pain and anger that can embitter the life of the unforgiving. As Kiwi says forgiving small trespasses is one thing, forgiving the ones who killed your loved ones and tortured you, they don't deserve it.
Regard GM

[A Potts]

As an Australian grandson of a WW2 veteran, I can say that all is forgiven!

Anything else is about ultimatly politics!