"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
> At 01:43 PM 5/26/01 -0700 Christopher Gwyn wrote:
>>> Although each of them would have greatly preferred to not be chosen
>>> to die, each and everyone of them was prepared to do so when called.
>> ??? Who chose who died?
> Ifni.
Then Ifni is as much an enemy of humanity as any leopard who ever
snatched a child from a camp. Ifni had better be careful.
{snip}
>>> For each soldier that was lucky enough to survive, they were simply happy
>>> to have their lives back.
>> that is certainly true!
> I'm glad you agree.
Anyone would be glad to be released from being ordered into
dangerous situations.
> Because using the above statement.......
Misusing.
> Each soldier that went to war gave their life.
Suggesting a 100% mortality rate? That is how most - if not all -
people would hear that statement.
> Those who died never got
> back. Those who came back, did. Thus, it is appropriate to commend "All
> Those Who Gave Their Lives", with the ", and didn't get it back" left
> implied.
> QED.
Utter Nonsense.
I have never heard anyone speaking of a living soldier as 'having
given his life for his country' - the terminology is solely reserved
for soldiers who died (and not always in actual combat). You can not
redefine the term in order to demonstrate that the current usage
doesn't imply what it does.
When I hear that someone 'gave his life' I think of someone jumping
on a grenade or some similar event - not someone being unlucky.
Someone who jumps on a grenade knows what is probably going to happen
if he does jump on it, and if he doesn't jump on it, and doesn't
perceive a third option with greater practicality than either of
those. He jumps on the grenade because that is the best thing he can
think of doing.
The only way that I can think of that degree of personal decision -
that giving - can apply to someone who 'has a bomb dropped on him'
(something determined by luck) is if that person has a death-wish and
events either happened to cooperate with his desire or he needlessly
took a risk.
Can you think of another way that _the actual events_ (not the
proximate causes, or original choices, but _the actual events_) of
such a random death can be seen as a 'giving a life' without
suggesting that the person is determined to die? And, since people
use this phrasing to talk about soldiers whose death was of little or
no benefit to the 'Greater Good' your analysis needs to account for
such 'meaningless deaths' too.
(You might also toss in how any military death does not violate
General Patton's dictum that 'you are not here to die for your
country, you are here to make some other s**ofab***h die for his
country.)
regards,
christopher
--
Christopher Gwyn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
