You bet your life!

Discussion in 'General' started by Kali Cowboy, Nov 14, 2008.

  1. ap Oweyn

    ap Oweyn Member


    Absolutely not. Warriors fight wars. I think we use that term way too casually these days.


    N/A

    I'm not even sure what this means. Would my training improve my odds in some situations? Sure. But that leaves an awful lot of ground on which to be shaky.

    No warrior ever got a guarantee. The rest of us don't either.


    Stuart
     
  2. Raul

    Raul Mananandata

    A non-question. The art is supposed to serve the artist, not the other way around.
     
  3. silat1

    silat1 Active Member

    Oh Snap,
    Now is that a nice thing to say? There are a few of us on the forum who are warriors and live the warrior mindset daily..:tank::apc:

    Although, I agree with you for the most part, there is a shortage of real warriors in the FMA. As you stated, a man who claims to be a warrior has never been to war or is spreading fertilizer on the field of battle..
    :bigun2:



     
  4. Guro Dave Gould

    Guro Dave Gould LAMECO ESKRIMA SYSTEM

    What is a Warrior?

    Interesting post! Now for my response:

    First and foremost, I feel that it really does come down to ones definition of what a warrior is. In my opinion a warrior is a person that has engaged in and is experienced in the harsh realities of warfare. In addition I feel that a strong positive mindset is necessary in transcending one from man to warrior. So to answer your question "Can anyone become a warrior"? my answer is no, not "anyone" can.

    Warfare in general covers alot of bases. There are many different types of warring which goes on in the world and whether we are speaking of conventional warfare, urban warfare, jungle warfare, psychological warfare, biological warfare, sub-urban warfare, holy wars or wars of attrition they all have one thing in common and that is the mindset of the person which will face them one and all with the same intent and determination. Without fear of losing life and limb in confronting extreme deadly crisis situations under duress.

    A warrior is someone who will stare fear in the eyes and will not back down even if it results in giving up his life, because he see`s the bigger picture in that many people may live or die based on the actions or in action of one man. A warrior is someone who refuses to be stopped until he has completed his objective and through thick or thin he is committed to completing that objective to positive effect with every ounce of his being.
    Why can not just anyone become a warrior??? I say that it`s because alot of people allow too much fear to profoundly control there lives and sell themselves far short of what they are truly capable of.

    Remember that a warrior faces the same fear that the coward does before going into combat and the one thing that will differentiate one from the other is what each decides to do with that fear. A warrior will face it and forge through to the other side risking life and limb in the process, whereas a coward will turn and run from it. A warrior speaks of what he "has" done whereas a coward speaks of what he "could have" done.

    This to me is what a warrior is and if you as a martial artist or anything else fit this criteria than yes you are or may one day become a warrior... If not than no matter how much you want to become one you will not. A warriors life is not for everyone but for the few that reach out and embrace the good and the bad of it will be rewarded in knowing that they are their own men and they will rejoice in the fact that neither fear nor any other emotion will have a crippling control over them. A true warrior is able to overcome circumstances beyong his control and is a master of his own domain... Fearless yet wise.

    You ask if I would give up my life for my art? I can`t say that I would, but I would gladly risk my life to ensure the daily freedoms that we all enjoy in the United States of America and to protect each citizen of this great countries freedom of speech whether I agree with individual points of view or not. I won`t "give" my life for anyone or anything as it will have to be "taken", but I will gladly risk my life for family, friends and country to include issues that I strongly believe in for the betterment of human kind.

    There is a difference between acknowledging battle experience and boasting about it. Many warriors will acknowledge their experiences but very few will boast about them as the taking of life effects everyone differently, some try and forget and others just try to justify and cope with what they have experienced, but only a slim minority of combat proven warriors will boast of taking ones life.

    I understand having pride in something but we have to prioritize, there are few things which merit risking ones life for and many things that are not. It comes down to ones individual perspective, I will fight for things that are dear to me but I will only risk my life for things that are dear too many, as the whole is greater than the sum parts of the greater equation, that being survivability of ones ideals, culture and identity as a people.

    This is my opinion guys. Go well, ciao.

    Guro Dave Gould.
     
  5. silat1

    silat1 Active Member

    This is most definitely a good thought provoking thread.. I have seen various interpetitions of the warrior image here.. In my opinion, our current day warriors are the people who stand at the front of the any natural disaster or manmade disaster that requires people to go above and beyond the normal day of living.. It is the military personnel manning the outposts and check points in full tactical gear with temperatures in excess of 100 degrees.. It is the cops that arrive on the scene outmanned and sometimes out gunned when others are hightailing it the opposite direction... Then there are the firefighters and medics who run into the building or hazmat scenes after the cops secure the perimeter in full hazmat suits while defusing the bombs or fighting the fires that take human lives... It is the civilian who has the concealed weapons permit who stands in defense of others in a mall where a gun man is running amok and willing to be tried by 12 instead of being carried by 6.. It is the nurses and medical staff that work the trauma units of the local hospitals and are overworked and underpaid, but they stay due to the commitment they make to help the patients that come through the double doors.. It is the individual who is willing to stand by his convictions while others are waffling in their opinions..

    These are my definitions of what being a warrior means.. I stand by these opinions as I am one of the boys in blue who runs in the direction of the situation while others head the opposite direction...

    Take it and next time you see any of these individuals, buy them a cup of coffee or just thank them... We are the bastid stepchildren of society until the fecal matter hits the oscillating mechanism, then we are everyone's best friend..

    Feel free to comment....
     
  6. Guro Dave Gould

    Guro Dave Gould LAMECO ESKRIMA SYSTEM

    Bill,

    Nice post!

    I do think that I know where Kali Cowboy was coming from in his initial post and now I will attempt to respond to that.

    Now that the definition of what a warrior is has been touched on I will attempt to answer the question with total honesty. The question posed is "Do I believe in my art enough to bet my life on it?" I have to say that all though I have all the confidence in Punong Guro Edgar G. Sulite and Lameco Eskrima it is not the art or the Master who passed it on to me but rather my confidence in self and individual combative ability which matter most and will ensure my existance on this planet.

    Just because one has a world class Instructor and is training in a world class system does not guarantee that one will result in becoming a world class fighter. Either you are a fighter or you are not, as only ones actual experience and combative abilities alone can speak on this issue, moreso than the mere knowledge that one possesses within his art or system. It is not the knowledge that one possesses but ones ability to apply that knowledge in ones time of need that is of most importance.

    I have fought challenges for my Instructor Edgar G Sulite in the past, as have most of my Lameco Eskrima brothers (Lameco SOG). However when we were fighting these challenges we were not trying to "kill" the person(s) in question, we were only trying to send a strong message to these people which insulted and disrespected our system and Master to respect us, but not to the point that we wanted to kill to make this point.

    As well in doing International seminars I have on more than a few occassions been challenged and I have fought these challenges which resulted in the challenger getting taught a hard and sometimes painful lesson, in some cases ending in the challenger being injured but no one was "killed" over something so trivial as "bragging rights", "pride of system" or "affiliation".

    Again I will fight tooth and nail over the things that I value but I would only consider "killing" or "being killed" over things of much greater value such as service to country and the survival of friends, family and self.

    *Do I have pride in representing Punong Guro Edgar G. Sulite and Lameco Eskrima? Absolutely!

    *Would I fight for the honor of my system and Instructor? I have and would!

    *Would I kill or be willing to be killed for my system? No I would not kill or be killed over pride and ego, however if I felt that Edgar Sulite at anytime was at the risk of losing his life to some sensless street thug I would stop at nothing to ensure his survival for at this point it would no longer be about pride or identity but about the survival of someone that I care deeply about.

    There is a great distintion between "fighting" for what you care about and "killing" for it. Go well, ciao.

    Guro Dave Gould.
     
  7. SoCalNative

    SoCalNative -== Banned ==-

    Fellas,

    Much agreed. More importantly, I believe we're all on the same page--that the "man who claims to be a warrior has never been to war". In the military it's usually the guy that never did time in combat arms that boasts of his various 'exploits' in war. Basically, guys faking it, to make it.

    This, to me, is similar to invoking one's 'warrior' culture. A person shouldn't hang on to the coattails of his ancestors to prove that he himself is a warrior. You either are or you're not, history or DNA has nothing to do with it (this includes martial arts styles, groups and schools).

    We all have seen this 'warrior' cult first hand within FMA, how everyone trips all over themselves in the rush to drink the Kool-Aid and then beat their chests and proclaim themselves WARRIORS. But, I guess, people do just feel the need to label themselves (oh well...).

    But going back to the definition of a warrior. I think we are all on the same page as far as the general description goes (the new Kid Rock video that's being played to death in theaters comes to mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0yVaHKcs9E ).

    I propose being more specific with the definition as someone who is actively engaged in the craft of warfare to the point where it becomes his profession. Even within military combat arms there is a distinct difference between a 20 yr old Marine who fought in Fallujah and got out after his tour AND a 40 yr old operator who's been warring since the 80s, who constantly goes to war because he thrives in it.

    As for imbuing police officers, fire fighters, nurses, soldiers and vigilantes with the title warrior, it's important that we recognize the weight of this word, but the titles 'police', 'fire fighter', etc. should carry the same honor in our minds. We should also remember that policing is not warfare--80% of this profession is talking to people. Fire fighting and nursing are mostly about saving lives, far from warfare. I guess depending on degrees, the vigilante and mercenary (or even hardened criminals) can be labeled as warriors, if they fit the definition.

    Whether you're in the military, law enforcement, or intelligence, if you're out going to war because it's your calling to go to war (not because you signed the contract--after you do your 4, go back home to marry Suzy Rottencrotch and work for your uncle's hardware store type deal). It's a very specific title reserved for the very few.

    (Just my opinion... with respect)
     
  8. ap Oweyn

    ap Oweyn Member

    I think the broader definitions of "warrior" are really just describing an exemplar of some sort or another. Someone who helps out with the recovery after a natural disaster, for example, may be an exemplary human being. A humanitarian. A virtuous individual. But when we extend the definition of "warrior" to include concepts of selflessness, determination, etc., we're clouding the issue.

    Warrior. War. Or at least real combat.

    I feel like it's something of a slight to people who really do (or will) put themselves in harm's way in the service of a cause to use "warrior" casually. Besides, historically, I feel like "warrior" is a social distinction more than anything else. Knights, samurai, kyshatriya, etc. Social castes, recognized within that social context. There's some sense of social recognition there, that people are part of a social strata. That sense of social recognition doesn't exist in my experience. In some cultures, sure. In mine, not so much.


    Stuart
     
  9. Guro Dave Gould

    Guro Dave Gould LAMECO ESKRIMA SYSTEM

    SoCalNative,

    Hello sir, I hope that all is well with you. I would just like to make a couple of comments on your post, I hope that you do not mind.

    >>> Much agreed. More importantly, I believe we're all on the same page--that the "man who claims to be a warrior has never been to war". In the military it's usually the guy that never did time in combat arms that boasts of his various 'exploits' in war. Basically, guys faking it, to make it.<<<

    This is not true, in my time in the U.S. Military I have encountered both types of soldiers (both combat Experienced), those that talk about their experiences in combat zones and those that do not. It is an individual choice, some try and forget and others try and remember. Just because someone talks of their combative experience does not mean that they are frauds or are lying about their experiences. Granted most people in the civilian sector that frequently bellish and exagerate their experiences may or may not be lying about those experiences. The few of us that have been in combat zones will be able to cut through to the truth in talking to those who claim to be in the know rather quickly.

    One of the most dangerous guys that I have ever met was in Korea he was also the last person that I would expect to have been involved in half the **** that he experienced. He was with "CAG" (Delta) there in Songnam working as an LNO brought in to train the "707" (Korean equivelent to Delta) and he was the biggest nerd that I had ever seen. To me he would have problems carrying around his computer much less engageing in combative missions "under the fence" so to speak. Looks are deceiving and his certainly were as I heard more about him through his comrades moreso than he himself would talk about and quite frankly the guy was an animal!. By all appearances he was just a quiet guy and honestly if he were to talk about his experiences just because of his appearance I would have a hard time believing him but he was hard core legit that had survived some very hairy **** in several combat theaters and hostile environments. But you are correct that most people that "boast" about their experiences are most likely exagerating and the more often and louder that they boast the more they are likely to exagerate. However some are legit...

    >>> "I propose being more specific with the definition as someone who is actively engaged in the craft of warfare to the point where it becomes his profession. Even within military combat arms there is a distinct difference between a 20 yr old Marine who fought in Fallujah and got out after his tour AND a 40 yr old operator who's been warring since the 80s, who constantly goes to war because he thrives in it." <<<

    Yes and no... one can not say that a Marine (with a combat MOS) that has only seen 1 tour of duty in a recognied combat zone is not a warrior. If you have experienced the cruelties and harsh realities of combat whether it be a 1 year long deployment fighting several battles in 1 war or 30 years of culminitive experience in warfare does not a difference make. Killing is killing and dead is dead. when the **** gets hairy and you have to get operational and achieve your objective as people are dying all around you and you stand a great chance in joining them in their fate if you make a mistake or they just get lucky you are at war and therefore a warrior. You are fortunate to get out of that theater in tact and if you are so lucky to get home "back on the block" there will be damage inflicted as you will be dealing with your experiences for years to come and maybe one day you will get back to what most people consider to be normal. Some do but most do not, for example that Marine may be fighting that battle for Fallujah for the rest of his life (In his head) and never find closure.

    As well there is a great distinction between a Mercenary and a Warrior. A warrior fights for country and family whereas a Merc. fights for money not necessarily discerning right from wrong or willing to fight on moral grounds. He just kind of goes to the highest bidder. Whereas a warrior fights for what he believes to be right and moral with much lying in the balance of his actions or inactions.

    In addition most operators that were on "A" teams in the 80`s would be too old now to be a functioning member of an "A" team and would more than likely be working in the capacity of an LNO training up Foreign Spec.Ops. if they are still active at all that is. 34 is pushing the age limit concerning "A" teams and peak combat performance in the Spec. Ops. community. Which is why there are "B" and "C" teams on three different tiers of Special Operations. Just because you may be too old to lead an "A" team does not mean that your experience is no longer valid.

    As well I would like to comment that just becuase many here may not fit the criteria of this definition of a warrior this does not mean that they can not train with the mindset of a warrior. There is nothing wrong with being a warrior in training and be fully prepared for the situation should the "balloon go up" at an unconvenient and quite unexpected time in your life. Which is why one of my montras is to "Train as if your life depends on it... because it does".

    Train well, ciao.

    Guro Dave Gould.
     
  10. SoCalNative

    SoCalNative -== Banned ==-

    Guru Dave, glad to read your response, sir. My apologies, I should've explained myself further. That was actually PG Michael's quote.. I read his original message that came with that quote, and the essence of that quote is about those who exaggerate, fake it, to make it type individuals—which all of us agree with. Both my grandfathers were war veterans, and both spoke at length about what they went through and what they did. When they shared their stories it was always in the spirit of knowledge, not to show off and proclaim themselves WARRIORs. I would venture to say that these quiet professionals are more the norm than the exception.

    My apologies again. I wasn't implying that the Marine was not a WARRIOR. I was trying to point out that even within the military combat arms there is a hierarchy within this concept of warrior (I'm going to assume that we agree on this hierarchy, so I won't describe it further). So, if a Marine or Army grunt will make this distinction as to who earns this title, is it fair that people who have never served, who fix computers all day long, then attend a few seminars in between their 4 day a week training regiment, get to arbitrarily label themselves as WARRIORs? I guess that was my issue, I should've been more clear.

    I guess here we actually disagree. I don't make this distinction, whether one fights for an abstract concept like freedom or democracy, whether he fights for money or for his brothers next to him, the point is he fights. I'm unable to romanticize the concept of a warrior as such, I guess that's also why I can lump in vigilantes and hardened criminals in this class. Warriors go to war, period—writers write, painters paint, how they rationalize this is their business.

    Well, not necessarily. If Mr. Waugh can volunteer to go to Afghanistan in his 70s, I'm sure you can lead an ODA at 40. As a matter of fact, I'm sure you can find a hand full of ODAs led by team sergeants around the ripe age of 40 (good luck telling them to sit it out). But those are the ones that want to lead ODAs, we're not even counting the 40 or 50 somethings that go into business for themselves or join a company, or switch to another gov't agency. Warriors go to war, age won't make them in-op, I guess is the point here.

    I can agree with you on this. The Marines use the WARRIOR concept perfectly, it's a great indoctrinating tool, not every Marine is combat arms, but when you imbue the whole Corps with this ethos, the organization becomes stronger. There is a healthy way to do this and there is an unhealthy way that we are seeing on here, in seminars, in classes, etc. When you have people issuing challenges over photos, or dying for their arts, or talking about how their ancestors ate body parts for lunch, there's something wrong. At least in the Marines there is a purpose behind the indoctrination. These groups running around christening individuals as warriors or individuals christening themselves as warriors, they don't know what's going on. It's like someone just christened them with a hard-on, but they don't really know what to do with it, so they end up screwing every inanimate object in sight, missing the whole point.

    Training with the mind-set of a warrior is fine, as long as it's healthy, but when you becoming a fanatic because of it, then maybe we should offer some perspective and I hope this is what this thread is doing.

    I'll leave on a lighter note. This whole episode about dueling in the FMA for the most inane reasons reminds me of an old Simpsons episode: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcgVRSmrLb0 ("Sir, I demand Satisfaction! I challenge you to a duel! Will you duel or are you a coward?", still funny as hell)

    With Peace.
     
  11. Guro Dave Gould

    Guro Dave Gould LAMECO ESKRIMA SYSTEM

    SocalNative,

    No worries, I just wanted to clarify some things and again this is for what these public forums are intended. One quick question for you are you prior service?

    It does come down to when one served as well. I served in the U.S Army in the early 80`s when all of Central America was going to hell. So things were alot different then more-so than they are now. In the early 80`s you still had to have a fairly high GT score and go through and pass a very rigorous selection process in order to get qualified before earning a class date to start phase 1 of the "Q-course" at camp Macall.

    Now because of high demand one can forego a high GT score and the rigourous selection process and enter directly into the Army from high school being only required to pass Basic Training, AIT, Jump School and go right into phase training. When I was in the service 34 was very old as a member of an ODA, as a matter of fact one of my buddies was ancient at the age of 38 as Team Leader of an ODA and at the ripe old age of 39 he was assigned an LNO position training up Foreign Spec. Ops. Soldiers in a country which fell into his language specialty.

    We are clear that a warrior is one that has engaged in war or at the very minimum faced the white elephant on a field of battle at some point of his existance on this planet. Prepare now and fight later, or now depending on when reality will rear its ugly head and force itself on you one day in the streets when you least expect it. War is the one thing that will never end so it is always wise to prepare for it in the eventuallity that it introduces itself to you one day as either you go to it or it comes to you. War is unbiased and without prejudice an equal opportunity killer that cares not how young or how old it finds its victims.

    So if no one gets anything at all out of this topic of discussion let it be the dire necessity to train and train with intention because no one knows when chaos and mayhem will intervene into ones daily rituals and have reality slap you square in the face with a serious wakeup call. Train well guys, ciao.

    Guro Dave Gould.
     
  12. septs

    septs New Member

    me? perhaps i would if i've already given half of my life to art. after all, life wouldn't be complete without its other half...
     
  13. el maldito de cebu

    el maldito de cebu New Member

    in my young age I served my country my school and fellow students, I was once trained and included in the Philippine Navy's Preparatory Military Training Corps I dont know what you call this in the U.S. I learned so many things specially responsibily and hang tough at all times. I learned to obey first and later complain. follow what I say and dont' follow what I do. very wonderful experience but suddenly nowadays it is being demolished due to financial budgets and some speculation in the AFP and the govt. If were the school director I will continue this project so that future filipinos would know how to be loyal to their mother land and develop thier sence of to deffend the country at all times not to be lured by colonial mentality. I wish that they ever shared their time and talent to the mother land and fellow country men. I rather choose not to be in the regulars due to personal ideology and a matter of choice. I'm glad that guro dave gould shared his tought on the necessity to train train and train cause war is inevitable and it is never ending.
     

Share This Page