walkingstar
New Member
Life is but a dream...
Posts: 39
|
Post by walkingstar on Aug 19, 2008 18:58:45 GMT -6
[quote author=darkcloud board= And good point about Christ. The first thing that springs to mind reading the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount is that this guy is a self centered glory hound just like, er, Custer and, of course, conz. Really, not only should lesser folk be impressed this Bevo Officer is walking among mere mortals but they ought to secretly bow and worship him, or at least his photographs which must suffice till the equestrian statue is completed.[/quote
I may be misunderstanding you and, if so, I apologize. But, are you comparing Christ Jesus to George Custer?
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Aug 19, 2008 23:59:53 GMT -6
He's ridiculing Clair, who deserves every bit of it. But really, you guys don't know anything about Army officers, now or then, if you don't think glory is part of the equation. The men of the 7th Cavalry CHEERED as they rode into battle that day. They LOVED to fight, and they were looking forward to a good battle against the Natives that day. Combat can be horrible and addictive all at the same time, many vets have told me. If it is so horrible, why does anyone do it? None of these men are conscripts, right? And most were combat veterans, right? Why are military men (and women), climbing all over themselves to get to Iraq and Afghanistan today before they miss their chance to get their combat badges? Glory IS an important element in the military psyche, now and then...make no mistake. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand Soldiers. Clair, I am really tired of you speaking for the military as if you have a clue. I had lunch yesterday with two young lieutenants who are being deployed to Iraq next month and my husband will be going within a year. "Glory" or getting a combat badge doesn't even enter the equation. Haven't you learned yet that the guys talking about their combat experiences are the liars?
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 20, 2008 6:48:18 GMT -6
I may be misunderstanding you and, if so, I apologize. But, are you comparing Christ Jesus to George Custer? Only tongue-in-cheek, because it tweaks the folks that are so paranoid about "Custerophiles." <g> The issue here is "glory"...is it a glorious thing, or is it something to be despised. We hear so much criticism towards Custer for seeking "glory," and being a "glory hunter." My point is that Soldiers are SUPPOSED to seek out glory, and we use it, in a very capitalistic way, to motivate our fighting men and units. We never deride glory in the military...we applaud and encourage it. Glory = heroism, esprit, pride, and accomplishment Anybody want to denigrate THAT?! Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 20, 2008 6:55:03 GMT -6
I had lunch yesterday with two young lieutenants who are being deployed to Iraq next month and my husband will be going within a year. "Glory" or getting a combat badge doesn't even enter the equation. Haven't you learned yet that the guys talking about their combat experiences are the liars? Vets aren't going to talk like that, Diane. Do you think they want to serve in the Army without getting any combat ribbons, when all their peers have one? Of course not...they MUST get those combat badges. It is part of their identity. Soldiers with combat badges and Soldiers without combat badges are NOT equal in the fraternity of Soldiers...sorry. It is important that you get one. I suppose those LTs don't covet a Silver Star, or look with respect at Soldiers wearing Medals of Honor? Now I'm not saying that everyone goes out there trying their hardest just to earn one (but many do), but they will certainly proudly accept and wear one! And envy those others who have one if they don't, eh? It is a hard position to argue against the notion of "wanting to be heroic and glorious" and then honor those who ARE heroic and glorious, don't you understand? Soldiers WANT to be heroic...even those LTs you dined with. What is the opposite...to NOT be heroic? To never be given a chance to be heroic...do you think that is what these officers want? There are three conditions a Soldier can end his career with: - People talk about them in derision - People talk about them in admiration - People don't talk about them at all. #2 is the most satisfying condition for a Soldier, I'd wager. In the extreme case, that's glory. The other cases...not so much. So when you talk to young Soldiers, tell them to go for the glory! Be a hero! Do great things! We want eager Soldiers, not reticent ones. War is hard enough. What is it that MAJ Elliot said as he rode off at Washita...something to the effect of: "I'm out for a brevet, or a coffin!" Clair
|
|
|
Post by clw on Aug 20, 2008 7:07:13 GMT -6
Let's take the concept of 'glory' out of the equation and look at Custer's mission. It was to make contact. I have no doubt that when the conference took place on the Far West that mission was clearly defined. Without contact, nothing can be accomplished. So if 'the signs' showed a large enemy force, should Custer have just quit? Of course not. When he located the enemy 30 miles away, should he have gone on down the Rosebud and tried to circle back, knowing full well they'd likely be long gone by then? Of course not. Was he instructed to wait for Terry before he attacked? We know he wasn't'. But because he did none of these things, he is tagged 'glory hunter'. We have needed, down through the years, someone to blame for all the horrible things done to our native peoples. And because the seventh was decimated, we attribute it to blind justice and Custer's 'arrogance and we feel a whole lot better. It allows us convenient penance.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 20, 2008 7:35:24 GMT -6
How very philosophical. It works. <g>
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 20, 2008 7:45:19 GMT -6
Webster's Dictionary:
Glory: praise, honor, distinction extended by common consent; worshipful praise, honor, and thanksgiving; a distinguished quality or asset; great beauty and splendor; something marked by beauty or resplendence; the splendor and beatific happiness of heaven; a state of great gratification or exaltation; a height of prosperity or achievement; a ring or spot of light. _________ Don't see death & destruction in that definition.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 20, 2008 7:49:07 GMT -6
I think most soldiers who are in combat want one thing: to survive. Someone else can have the glory.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 20, 2008 10:43:21 GMT -6
Good definition, but bad assumption about Soldiers of any age or any army, crzhrs...
Most Soldiers in combat don't want mainly to survive...that is just a side benefit if you are lucky.
Most Soldiers in combat want to DO THEIR JOBS, #1. If that means dying, well, that's part of the job.
Glory does not mean dying necessarily. If you can do the job without anybody dying, all the more glory.
But Soldiers aren't there to avoid combat. They are there to go into combat, willingly, wherever they need to. Just that act is heroic enough...beyond that basic heroism are the "above and beyond" acts that result in "glory," well defined above.
Every Soldier wants to gain glory for his unit, and ego issues aside, for his/her self in the process. The alternative is humiliation and cowardice...do you think any Soldiers value that over their own safety? What good is it to be alive if you are humiliated? Not much...to a Soldier, anyway.
So do we want "glory hunters" or cowards as our Soldiers. Which type were the men and officers of the 7th Cavalry that day?
For that matter, which type were the Sioux and Cheyenne Warriors that day?
Looks to me like they are ALL "glory hunters," at least in intent, if not in execution.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 20, 2008 11:34:40 GMT -6
<What good is it to be alive if you are humiliated? Not much...to a Soldier, anyway>
Then the soldiers on Correigador should not have surrendered? They should have fought to the last man even if the odds were against them? Better to die fighting?
The Japanese would not humiliate themselves by surrendering . . . they fought even if all they had were rocks and pointed sticks.
The Sioux & Cheyenne had no choice but to fight . . . their families were attacked.
Remember the Indians sometimes ran when the signs and odds were not in their favor . . . glory is in the eye of the beholder.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 20, 2008 13:18:36 GMT -6
<What good is it to be alive if you are humiliated? Not much...to a Soldier, anyway> Then the soldiers on Correigador should not have surrendered? They should have fought to the last man even if the odds were against them? Better to die fighting? It is not humiliating to surrender when you have no purpose in further fighting. Those guys held on much longer than they needed to, in fact. Their resistance was honorable. The shame is in the United States for not supporting them out there properly, not in the conduct of the Soldiers there. That's fine, but foolish. In the West, we do not have a code against surrendering when resistance is unwarranted...but some societies do. Note that the Native Americans didn't usually surrender in battle, although that was more because of fear of capture than from fear of loss of honor. They had just as much choice as the Soldiers. They could surrender their families...its not like the Soldiers would kill their families if they surrendered. They fought for their own glory, not to preserve their families. In fact, the SAFEST place for their families was on the reservation, right? Normally no glory in running, unless you are caught in a scrape where you should have been destroyed, but by wiles and courage you managed to escape. That can gain you glory. Escaping as a prisoner of war can gain you glory. So sometimes running IS an act worthy of glory and heroism...it is all in the context. Clair
|
|
|
Post by bc on Aug 20, 2008 19:25:47 GMT -6
Let's not forget what soldiers (and all guys in general) would have done had they won the battle: Later on after the battle was over, they would have been riding up and down the main drag of the village trying to pick up chicks!
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 20, 2008 19:55:12 GMT -6
LOL...there are all kinds of different "glories," to a Soldier. <g>
Maybe we can agree on it this way, Diane and Crzhrs...
War is not glorious...it is a horror. But the men and women that participate in warfare often do glorious things, and are to be honored.
In fact, maybe it is because war IS so horrible, that the good deeds of men and women in such an environment is what makes them so worthy of glory.
So let's bemoan what caused the loss of life on the LBH that day, but also pay homage to the men and women that lost their lives there...Soldier and Native American, and to those that did their best and persevered.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by bc on Aug 20, 2008 20:27:17 GMT -6
I would add that Glory can come from just doing your duty while serving your country. Its that feeling of Esprit de Corps that you get. I haven't met a vet yet that wasn't proud of serving his country no matter what they did or MOS was. You see that glory on our faces when we are marching down the street on veterans day, memorial day, and in other parades.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 21, 2008 6:45:01 GMT -6
I would add that Glory can come from just doing your duty while serving your country. Its that feeling of Esprit de Corps that you get. I haven't met a vet yet that wasn't proud of serving his country no matter what they did or MOS was. You see that glory on our faces when we are marching down the street on veterans day, memorial day, and in other parades. Amen, brother...I should hope so. Most of us, anyway. I think Vietnam really twisted this in some citizens, and some veterans, minds, but we're getting over that. It is becoming cool to talk about heroism, and military service of any form, again. Clair
|
|