I agree. This demonstrates the distortion of friendship during the war, because of the immense pressure. Jenson's relief signals that he is man that focuses on right and wrong, caring more about promises than friendship. Also, although he didn't kill Strunk, his relief suggests honoring the pact was the right thing and honoring Strunks revised wishes would have been the wrong thing to do.
He wanted to listen to Strunk's wishes in not killing him although they did have an agreement. He did not want to kill him but this just shows that he cared enough to honor Strunk's wishes although he may have known he was going to die eventually.
I agree with all of you. Strunk's death freed Jensen from the pact they made and the promise he could not keep. He would no longer be responsible for Strunk's pain and suffering--or ending it. This sort of dynamic in a friendship is really hard to imagine.
This site has some really powerful photos of the relationships between soldiers. http://my.opera.com/vinniecfp/blog/2009/12/22/a-soldiers-best-friend-vietnam
He was let out of a deal that he didn't want to be in anymore. He had broken his promise to Strunk and even though it was Strunk who told him not to, its hard to deal with. The constant looming thought that Strunk might one day wish he had been killed there or the thought that its his fault that Strunk is handicapped.
I cried during this chapter, losing a friend like that, feeling like you need to kill them to keep a promise and to put them out of the shame of being crippled. How many people could stand there and just kill someone they care about?
You ask a really difficult question. I could never purposefully harm someone that I cared about like that, but then I start to think, what if they asked me to? What if my brother was sitting at my feet, slowly bleeding out, and begging me to end him quickly with a bullet through the brain? I know that's a bit over-dramatic and gruesome, but it just makes me wonder. Could I do it? I think if there were no other option and it had to be done, to save them from so much pain while they were already dying, I could do it. If they were begging me to. But then I start to rethink... I hope I'm never in a situation where I have to decide something like that.
I would not kill him even if I promised that I would. That's just one thing that I feel I wouldn't have the moral capacity to do and put his family through if there was a chance he could still have a life. But it's hard to think about them suffering so it really is a tough question.
I don't understand their obsession with wishing to be killed rather than crippled. I don't know if it's the embarrassment of not being "whole", or that you managed to get yourself injured, or if you need help with some things now...I don't know why anyone would rather be dead than crippled. To me, losing an arm or a leg says a lot more about you than dying. Even though you lost a whole part of yourself, you're still here, you're functioning, you did what you had to do and you managed to live through it. I don't get why it's embarrassing for them.
As for their pact, I don't think they thought about it before they made it. I don't think any friend could do that to someone they loved, unless it was a true, TRUE situation of putting someone out of their misery and there was absolutely no justification to do otherwise.
I don't think I could ever kill someone I cared about. Your question reminds me of Divergent, when Tris was about to kill Tobias, but she couldn't because "It would have been like killing myself." I would never be able to live with myself if I killed someone I loved, even if they were crippled.
I think in a way they both knew that neither one would kill the other when it came to it. Jensen knew when he was by Strunk's side that if the roles were reversed, he would probably be begging for his life as well.
I think they had a fear of coming back from war and not being able to do what they had always done before. Most of the soldiers were really young so being crippled would limit a lot of what they could do after the war so much that death seemed like a better option to them.
Here is a site i found with some coolstatistics about the war.
It's one thing to kill an enemy combatant. It's quite another to kill a friend or to kill in cold blood. I don't think I would be able to ever bring myself to do that. I think it's morally wrong, but I've never been in a situation remotely close to the strain that came out of Vietnam.
I agree those are people that they were spending everyday with in very harsh conditions, they probably had a bond stronger than any of us could know. I don't think I would be able to do it if I was in Jensen's place.
If you signed a document saying that you would kill a friend if they were wheel chair bound to save them from a fate they don't want to know, could you do it? (no legal repercussions implied, this is just would you honor your friend) What if he had survived and later killed himself or hurt other people would you be okay with that knowing you were the one that put them through their worst nightmare?
I most certainly could not kill a friend who ended up needing to be in a wheelchair, even if we had agreed to it. I personally believe that living in a wheelchair would be much better than not living at all. If my friend ended up hurting himself or others, that would be tragic, but the blood wouldn't be on my hands.
*this is a response to Jessies question, but my computer won't let me post it as a reply.
Why do you think that Dave Jensen felt relieved after he heard that Lee Strunk had died over Chu Lia?
ReplyDeletehttp://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fovhRDRsH7k/S-7lEujxLWI/AAAAAAAABDo/rUCDj7dbTng/s1600/1965_sighting-near-DaNang.jpg
He didn't want to kill his friend, and he didn't want to feel like a cheat for not following their agreement.
DeleteBecause now he didn't have to worry about his obligation to kill his friend, and now his friend doesn't have to live as a cripple.
DeleteI agree. This demonstrates the distortion of friendship during the war, because of the immense pressure. Jenson's relief signals that he is man that focuses on right and wrong, caring more about promises than friendship. Also, although he didn't kill Strunk, his relief suggests honoring the pact was the right thing and honoring Strunks revised wishes would have been the wrong thing to do.
DeleteHe wanted to listen to Strunk's wishes in not killing him although they did have an agreement. He did not want to kill him but this just shows that he cared enough to honor Strunk's wishes although he may have known he was going to die eventually.
DeleteI agree with all of you. Strunk's death freed Jensen from the pact they made and the promise he could not keep. He would no longer be responsible for Strunk's pain and suffering--or ending it. This sort of dynamic in a friendship is really hard to imagine.
DeleteThis site has some really powerful photos of the relationships between soldiers.
http://my.opera.com/vinniecfp/blog/2009/12/22/a-soldiers-best-friend-vietnam
He was let out of a deal that he didn't want to be in anymore. He had broken his promise to Strunk and even though it was Strunk who told him not to, its hard to deal with. The constant looming thought that Strunk might one day wish he had been killed there or the thought that its his fault that Strunk is handicapped.
DeleteI cried during this chapter, losing a friend like that, feeling like you need to kill them to keep a promise and to put them out of the shame of being crippled. How many people could stand there and just kill someone they care about?
ReplyDelete(Beil)
DeleteYou ask a really difficult question. I could never purposefully harm someone that I cared about like that, but then I start to think, what if they asked me to? What if my brother was sitting at my feet, slowly bleeding out, and begging me to end him quickly with a bullet through the brain? I know that's a bit over-dramatic and gruesome, but it just makes me wonder. Could I do it? I think if there were no other option and it had to be done, to save them from so much pain while they were already dying, I could do it. If they were begging me to. But then I start to rethink... I hope I'm never in a situation where I have to decide something like that.
I would not kill him even if I promised that I would. That's just one thing that I feel I wouldn't have the moral capacity to do and put his family through if there was a chance he could still have a life. But it's hard to think about them suffering so it really is a tough question.
DeleteI don't understand their obsession with wishing to be killed rather than crippled. I don't know if it's the embarrassment of not being "whole", or that you managed to get yourself injured, or if you need help with some things now...I don't know why anyone would rather be dead than crippled. To me, losing an arm or a leg says a lot more about you than dying. Even though you lost a whole part of yourself, you're still here, you're functioning, you did what you had to do and you managed to live through it. I don't get why it's embarrassing for them.
DeleteAs for their pact, I don't think they thought about it before they made it. I don't think any friend could do that to someone they loved, unless it was a true, TRUE situation of putting someone out of their misery and there was absolutely no justification to do otherwise.
I don't think I could ever kill someone I cared about. Your question reminds me of Divergent, when Tris was about to kill Tobias, but she couldn't because "It would have been like killing myself." I would never be able to live with myself if I killed someone I loved, even if they were crippled.
Deletehttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/why-stephen-hawking-is-cool/
DeleteAbby, yeah what's wrong with cripples.
I think in a way they both knew that neither one would kill the other when it came to it. Jensen knew when he was by Strunk's side that if the roles were reversed, he would probably be begging for his life as well.
DeleteI think they had a fear of coming back from war and not being able to do what they had always done before. Most of the soldiers were really young so being crippled would limit a lot of what they could do after the war so much that death seemed like a better option to them.
DeleteHere is a site i found with some coolstatistics about the war.
http://www.uswings.com/vietnamfacts.asp
It's one thing to kill an enemy combatant. It's quite another to kill a friend or to kill in cold blood. I don't think I would be able to ever bring myself to do that. I think it's morally wrong, but I've never been in a situation remotely close to the strain that came out of Vietnam.
DeleteI agree those are people that they were spending everyday with in very harsh conditions, they probably had a bond stronger than any of us could know. I don't think I would be able to do it if I was in Jensen's place.
DeleteIf you signed a document saying that you would kill a friend if they were wheel chair bound to save them from a fate they don't want to know, could you do it? (no legal repercussions implied, this is just would you honor your friend)
ReplyDeleteWhat if he had survived and later killed himself or hurt other people would you be okay with that knowing you were the one that put them through their worst nightmare?
I most certainly could not kill a friend who ended up needing to be in a wheelchair, even if we had agreed to it. I personally believe that living in a wheelchair would be much better than not living at all. If my friend ended up hurting himself or others, that would be tragic, but the blood wouldn't be on my hands.
ReplyDelete*this is a response to Jessies question, but my computer won't let me post it as a reply.