SuAside said:
sorry to disappoint you, but the vast majority of combat medics are armed. this in the past and present. they are still soldiers as well.
the second World War & Vietnam might have had a higher percentage of totally unarmed medics, but that was due to conscription.
I am aware about that, I wanted to be a medic when I tried to apply to military in Germany once some time back, but have been refused cause I was in a hospital once. The fact that you are armed doesnt mean that you have to use the gun all the time except when you have to defend your self.
To be attacker and to defend your self while you try to heal someone are two differnt things for me. I know its all the same force, but at least in Germany (cant say how it is for the US army) the chance for a medic to see combat are always amlost zero, they get a basic shoot training and carry a gun but more cause its a directive, from what the commanders and advicors told me, when it would ever become a hot zone shooting would be almost never the job of a medic since he would be bussy doing other things. Obviously.
Of course the world is neither absolutely black or white. Police officers, night-watchmen, drivers of armored cars (for banks), bodyguards etc. all do only their job and sometimes have to kill someone to do their job. They dont want it and they do not provoke it. It is not a nice thing but a thing that is needed. World is never as simple as that. And I think as long people dont want to do it but have to do it, they just do what is right.
SuAside said:
...
you object to killing, but like medics? even the unarmed medics patched up people, which in turn allowed those to go on killing.
so with killing, i have to ask you where you draw the line? Einstein was what you might call a hero of science, but caused the death of thousands. is that killing?
you're entitled to your opinion of course, but reality seems a little less black & white then you might think.
Of course I would never blame a medic or any other person for the action of others. That would be like blaming a doctor in a hospital for patching up a murder which explained before that he will do it again, or if you want a medic working in a jail that helped a criminal which got released the next day and killed some person while he commited again a crime. You never can in my eyes blame people for the action of others as long they did it voluntary. You only can feel personaly responsible for your own actions. That counts for scientists just as it does for a doctor. Your thing with Einstein is for example a bad example, Oppenheimer would have been the guy if anything that one should name (or blame), Einsteins target never was to create a formula for the use in a bomb just as it was not Newtons original intentions for a use in military when he thought out the laws of mechanics. And one should as well remember that it was not Oppenheimer was not alone responsible for the production of the bomb and no one of them have droped the weapon on the Japanese cities, that have been the pilotes and even they have been ordered by their commander to do it which had their orders by the President which got the advice from his advisors which told him without a use the war might take (much) longer. That doesnt mean neither Oppenheimer or the Pilot have no responsibility. It just means to me that it never is a simple scenario and it is never easy to blame someone. Not in such a case at least
If you would really try to go such a route, you could as well blame anyone for anything as you can always go back in the cause of actions since any action is always just the reaction to a earlier event. Its many times a complex scenario. Not always I guess but sure many times enough. And in the end you never can realy blame anyone with a 100% safety. You can always only prosecute people for what they really are responsible for.
Radwaster said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'd understood Zen to be an amoral philosophical view. That seems at odds with your stance here?
If you go for the parts of Zen that are practised with sword mastery, or directly related to combat (like jujutsu, judo and some forms), then yes killing is somewhat seen as necessary part in some philosophies albeit the target is always usualy to avoid it not to provoke it but I doubt its a usual soldiers wish to kill one (regardles of what religion) it just happens I guess, Zen is more then only about a moral or ethic Judo for example is using from Zen only the way of grades which are related to the way how black belts are graduated, Judo is a style that doesnt even teach you real fighting in the sense of "hurting" your opponent (in Judo and many other martial arts you have more then just one black belt or grade though some are seen as impossible to achieve like the hightest grade which is credited to the spirit of judo for example).
But what I mean is more of the buddhistic site of Zen and its roots which involve to avoid the killing of any living beeing regardless what it is. It has to do with karma. From the Buddhistic view any action regardless if good or bad always cause a reaction and thus will revert to the orignator of the action and affect his karma in one way or another. Target of the followers of Buddha is thus to achieve a if you want neutral karma which does not leave any trace and lead to the nirvana. I am hardly a professional nor would I self classify my self as "buddhist" or "zen buddhist" its more a pinciple I guess then a real religion anyway. But since I am very close to it cause of the martial arts that I practise you start to get close with some parts of it over time I guess. It defiently is very interesting. And it definetly allows for many many more different views then just the as how I sensed it more or less simple "black" and "white" interpretation which I experienced with the orthodox/katholic view I have grown up with.
)