NationStates Jolt Archive

"The point of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other poor bastard die for his."

United States General George Patton

..nice

Yeah, seems to be a good point. Making people die and all...And many of them too. Yeah.

Smart.

Our job is not to forgive the enemy their transgressions. That's God's job. Our job is to arrange the appointment.

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

Well...sometimes violence just can't be avoided.

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

Violence is the...uhh...violence..um...(scratch, scratch)...refoog...


SMACK!!!

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

Yup, it's the last refuge of the incompetant. It's one of the first for those smart enough to realize it's significance...

The first thing should be tried is diplomacy. Once that fails, decide how important the problem is, and if important enough, go to war.

The point of war is to destoy your enemy by any means needed.

Jim

The point of war is to destoy your enemy by any means needed.

Jim

Without resorting to dishonorable tactics that is.

"The point of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other poor bastard die for his."

United States General George Patton

Yeah... that is pretty damned accurate. They don't train soldiers to die after all, they train them to kill. And I think we can safely say no soldier has ever been sent to war with the goal of having him never return alive. Though obviously the comment undermines some of the principles that start wars, I don't believe he meant to address that with that statement.

Without resorting to dishonorable tactics that is.

In war there is no honor, there is only simple survival. From the civilian to the warrior, there is only survival.

The warrior tries to at least minimize suffering, but in war, humans Die.

Jim

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

Reminds me of a quote I'll paraphrase from Starship Troopers:

"Violence has solved more problems than any other method."

Reminds me of a quote I'll paraphrase from Starship Troopers:

"Violence has solved more problems than any other method."

Good one: That which does not exist, can no longer object.

Jim

Reminds me of a quote I'll paraphrase from Starship Troopers:

"Violence has solved more problems than any other method."

I hate to get all Saveremish, but violence also creates more problems than any other method. How bad would life be if there were no murderers, rapists, soldiers, etc.?

i say we just kill two birds and get stoned. :p

I hate to get all Saveremish, but violence also creates more problems than any other method. How bad would life be if there were no murderers, rapists, soldiers, etc.?

Are you equating soldiers with murderers and rapists?

How peaceful is the silence
of the graveyard full
Of those who would stand ready
And fight when no one would?


jim

I hate to get all Saveremish, but violence also creates more problems than any other method. How bad would life be if there were no murderers, rapists, soldiers, etc.?

*smacks Letila for putting soldiers in the same category as rapists and murderers*

Many of the problems violence creates can also be solved with violence, thereby getting rid of the problem.

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
- Attributed to General George Patton Jr
(from "A Genius for War" by Carlo d'Este)

i think that is the correct quote, or i don't know maybe General George Patton Jr was just paraphrasing his dad.......

"War is an art and as such is not susceptible of explanation by fixed formula"
- General George Patton Jr

*smacks Letila for putting soldiers in the same category as rapists and murderers*

Many of the problems violence creates can also be solved with violence, thereby getting rid of the problem.

I wish I could remember the exact quote, but it was something like: Fighting fire with fire burns your house down faster.

*smacks Letila for putting soldiers in the same category as rapists and murderers*

Many of the problems violence creates can also be solved with violence, thereby getting rid of the problem.

Getting rid of the immediate problem, perhaps. In the long term, using violence to combat violence creates yet more problems, and solving each of those with violence creates even more problems, and so on.

It's never a good thing to place soldiers in the same category as murderers and rapists (though none can deny the crossover that exists between the groups in the midst of war). However, the point stands; were this world rid of violence, it would be a far better place.

Myself, I just find it interesting to look at. Violence cycles and spirals out of control between nations, war begetting war, breeding more and more hatred, eventually to spill out into yet more war. Strange to see those we call our leaders ("us" being everyone worldwide) acting more like spoiled kindergardeners than rational adults when dealing with each other.

No, violence is not the last refuge of the incompetent. It is their first refuge; those who are most intelligent and see things in the long-term avoid violence whenever possible. A good example would be martial artists; these are people who can kill you with a quick, effortless motion, can utterly annihilate the body of anyone around them at any time, many can even fight unarmed successfully against an opponent carrying a gun. And yet, by and large, they are the least aggressive people around. The training (assuming one trains under a decent teacher) includes restraint, and an understanding that one learns these techniques in order never to have to use them.

There is a solution to every problem, and by far the majority never really require violence, assuming one is willing to be creative about it.

Reminds me of a quote I'll paraphrase from Starship Troopers:

"Violence has solved more problems than any other method."
Good one: That which does not exist, can no longer object.
While Heinlein brings up Carthage and the Bug War appears to be a war of xenocide, he explicitly mentions the legitimate use of violence through Sgt. Zim. I quote from chapter 5. The recruits are learning knife-throwing and one is wondering what use it is since there are atomic weapons that, on the surface, appear far more effective.

"If you wanted to teach a baby a lesson, would you cut its head off?"
"Why... no, sir!"
"Of course not. You'd paddle it. There can be circumstances when it's just as foolish to hit an enemy city with an H-bomb as it would be to spank a baby with an ax. War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him... but to make him do what you want him to do. Not killing... but controlled and purposeful violence."

This speech got particularly brutalized in the movie. (A bit of sadistic brutality and the line: "No hand, no button." or something equally trite.)

Another good quote on the point of war:

"The legitimate object of war is a more perfect peace." William Tecumseh Sherman

*smacks Letila for putting soldiers in the same category as rapists and murderers*

I don't see the difference, myself.

i dont see the difference either.

"Alcohol: The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems."

-Homer Simpson.

"...The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him... but to make him do what you want him to do. Not killing... but controlled and purposeful violence."

A perfect illustration of the "universal soldier" myth. Interesting how it forms a direct parallel to The Art of War...

The difference between soldiers and rapists/murderers, you tools, is that soldiers act under order. Murderers and rapists do what they do out of their own accord.

A perfect illustration of the "universal soldier" myth. Interesting how it forms a direct parallel to The Art of War...

The difference between soldiers and rapists/murderers, you tools, is that soldiers act under order. Murderers and rapists do what they do out of their own accord.

Absolutely right.

I don't see the difference, myself.

Soldiers don't go around knocking up helpless women and killing people for fun, you retard. You're just damn lucky there isn't a verteran or serviceman around to kick some sense into that thick skull of yours.

A perfect illustration of the "universal soldier" myth. Interesting how it forms a direct parallel to The Art of War...

The difference between soldiers and rapists/murderers, you tools, is that soldiers act under order. Murderers and rapists do what they do out of their own accord.

Devil's Advocate standpoint ahead --> Soldiers have every ability to reject an order if they feel it is something that is immoral. It certainly doesn't absolve them from killing just because someone else told them to. <--- You are now leaving the Devil's Advocate area. Please come again.

The difference is that soldiers are usually doing what they feel is right, and (again, usually, in theory) protecting their country. A murderer is simply a generic killer, and the killing could be for any number of reasons (some may be good, most probably aren't). Rape is just generally never needed or warranted, and hence never acceptable.

The difference is that soldiers are usually doing what they feel is right, and (again, usually, in theory) protecting their country. why is protecting ones country a valid jsutification for inflicting death on another human being. I would perhaps understand if you said 'community' but country is far to abstract a concept to be of use. Of course feel free to provide a more meaningful definition of country.

why is protecting ones country a valid jsutification for inflicting death on another human being. I would perhaps understand if you said 'community' but country is far to abstract a concept to be of use. Of course feel free to provide a more meaningful definition of country.

Accually, I'm inclined to support the idea of a return to communal gov't.

why is protecting ones country a valid jsutification for inflicting death on another human being. I would perhaps understand if you said 'community' but country is far to abstract a concept to be of use. Of course feel free to provide a more meaningful definition of country.

I hadn't really intended to justify killing, though I guess I can see how that would come across. I merely meant to say they kill to protect, rather than kill out of anger, hatred, jealousy, or other concepts which are considered more base and 'immoral' and are more common in non-soldier killings. Of course, morality is relative... so...

Yeah well Patton said 'dumb, poor bastard'. It's quite obvious that he, like most soldiers, knew that soldiers from all countries 'give' their lives for the convictions of others. It's an old idea but it really would be nice if all those (usually) old men who like to spout on about their beliefs and faiths being better than the next mans, were made to slug it out themselves. Honour the soldier by all means but never forget who sent the 'dumb, poor bastard' to die.

Soldiers have every ability to reject an order if they feel it is something that is immoral. It certainly doesn't absolve them from killing just because someone else told them to.

Yes, but(as it applies to volunteer armies specifically, such as the USA's) why would somebody opposed to killing choose to join the military? They know the risks of dying and causing death. People who joing the military don't (generally) do it because they want to know what it's like to kill man -recounts of regret and doubt after a first kill are just about endless- they do it out of a sense of duty. The military/government, to these people, is not "just somebody." It's the structure to which they owe virtually every aspect of their existence, their very way of life. Why shouldn't somebody feel indebted to such a thing?

Yes, but(as it applies to volunteer armies specifically, such as the USA's) why would somebody opposed to killing choose to join the military? They know the risks of dying and causing death. People who joing the military don't (generally) do it because they want to know what it's like to kill man -recounts of regret and doubt after a first kill are just about endless- they do it out of a sense of duty. The military/government, to these people, is not "just somebody." It's the structure to which they owe virtually every aspect of their existence, their very way of life. Why shouldn't somebody feel indebted to such a thing?

It isn't the killing I suggest they may object to, but the reason and context. A soldier may be fine with killing to protect his homeland, but not to smite a nation over some trivial dispute. A soldier may be fine with bombing an enemy bunker, but not a civilian home.

If soldiers cannot use context in their judgement, then I truly pity them.

I wouldn't PITY them. After all, ignorance truly is bliss. Without the moral burden of making such judgements yourself, life becomes much easier. You become a cog in the greater machine, a tool towards destiny.

All international wars I know of were initiated for economic reasons(Cold War conflicts excepted, strangely). The foot-soldiers who chose to fought in these wars, however, often joined for their own moral reasons. The American Union didn't fight the Confederacy because it believed slavery was immoral, but there were doubtless many Union soldiers who fought because they wanted to free the slaves. The first Crusade was a result of Emperor Alexis(sp?) I's petition to the Pope for aid against teh growing Turkish influence -but many peasants who joined the Crusades joined because the Church spread lies about Muslim harassment of pilgrims.

Blaming soldiers themselves for "wrong" wars is dangerous ground to tread -there is almost never a unity between what their government wants, and what they want. Propaganda is one of the most powerful tools a nation can wield in its bid for power. I rarely find myself respecting soldiers for being perceptive, or for waging a war, but I do find myself respecting them for their willingness to fight for what they themselves believe is the cause of the war. They may be noble, but they are certainly not that intelligent.

This is, of course, all generalization.

It's an old idea but it really would be nice if all those (usually) old men who like to spout on about their beliefs and faiths being better than the next mans, were made to slug it out themselves.

I'd love to see Dubya and Chaney serve some military time out in Iraq.
Or see Bush serve any of the military time he was supposed to, for that matter.

It was probably true then during a conscripted army. With a volunteer army, however, that arguement doesn't hold water.

It was probably true then during a conscripted army. With a volunteer army, however, that arguement doesn't hold water.

What about the draft?

Don't forget that just because they've "volunteered" doesn't mean they have any desire or obligation to kill any and every poor bastard that wears the wrong uniform.

Soldiers don't go around knocking up helpless women and killing people for fun, you retard. You're just damn lucky there isn't a verteran or serviceman around to kick some sense into that thick skull of yours.
*laughs*
Ah, irony....

The sad fact of war is this: -

Because of war or the threat of war, mankind has developed technology (including medicine) quicker than it would of been possible without war.

We have Atificial rubber, computers, the jeep & jet aircraft, advance medicine, radar, & a hell of a lot of other items as a direct result of war. Even the Cold war lead to advances in technology which has become part of every day life for the civilian population of many nations of the world.

If there was no war or violence then it is quite possible we would still be living as simple farmers or hunter/ gatherers..living in primitive huts.

An example of this is the aborigines (sp?) of Australia who did not have wars (at most tribal conflicts with tribes next to theirs) and have lived in Australia for approxamitly 60,000 years and had very little technology (no copper, bronze, iron or steel tools etc). Yes they were adapted to the land but were unable to eject European invaders (mainly English) who moved onto their land (invaded) & with their advance technology were able to take control of the country of Australia. As a result in less than 300 years Australia is controlled by non-aborigines in large steel, glass & concreate structures and who can traveling vast distances in a matter of hours.

So while we deplore war we also need it to improve our lives.....If we survive the war that is.

I don't see the difference, myself.

I do. I am a soldier...with a wife and two small children. To the best of my knowledge, I haven't killed or raped anyone.

Soldiers, at least in my country, fight and die to give people like you the right to spit on them.

why is protecting ones country a valid jsutification for inflicting death on another human being. I would perhaps understand if you said 'community' but country is far to abstract a concept to be of use. Of course feel free to provide a more meaningful definition of country.

Country: A place where you would be pissed off and ready to kill if someone else tried to take it from you.

Well, it's quite obvious really...

Soldiers are used for war - using violence. Anyone who denies this needs their head checked.

Soldiers make use of violence - and the threat of violence.

The military are hired killers.

Not meaning to disrespect any soldiers here, but that IS your job. Other euphemisms used are "protecting and serving your country", "helping national security" etc. It all boils down to violence.

Well, it's quite obvious really...

Soldiers are used for war - using violence. Anyone who denies this needs their head checked.

Soldiers make use of violence - and the threat of violence.

The military are hired killers.

Not meaning to disrespect any soldiers here, but that IS your job. Other euphemisms used are "protecting and serving your country", "helping national security" etc. It all boils down to violence.
Violence is the means, not the end. Soldiers implement their government's decisions by organized violence (and other means occasionally: such as disaster relief). If the government represents the people in that country then the army will as well. If a country's government is not for the people then the army will be the boot stomping forever on their face.

In any case, those "euphemisms" that you mentioned aren't to be dismissed. In free nations they are end to which the soldier applies his primary means of violence.

Violence is the means, not the end. Soldiers implement their government's decisions by organized violence (and other means occasionally: such as disaster relief). If the government represents the people in that country then the army will as well. If a country's government is not for the people then the army will be the boot stomping forever on their face.

In any case, those "euphemisms" that you mentioned aren't to be dismissed. In free nations they are end to which the soldier applies his primary means of violence.

Yes, the governments decisions are implemented through violence. The army have no say in those decisions, they kill on demand. Whether a government is democratic (representative - or at least pretending to be) or not is irrelevent, as the decision does not lie with the troops. They are the tool of violence used.

How do you define a "free nation"? The ends are abstract, any nation can use them as justification.

I hate to get all Saveremish, but violence also creates more problems than any other method. How bad would life be if there were no murderers, rapists, soldiers, etc.?


Oh it would be pretty good until a race of aliens found our planet and attacked us.

Why do people keep thinking murder and rape are unnatural aspects of our society?

Are you equating soldiers with murderers .....?Well a good soldier...is a good murderer...

Well, it's quite obvious really...

Soldiers are used for war - using violence. Anyone who denies this needs their head checked.

Soldiers make use of violence - and the threat of violence.

The military are hired killers.

Not meaning to disrespect any soldiers here, but that IS your job. Other euphemisms used are "protecting and serving your country", "helping national security" etc. It all boils down to violence.
Armies are meant to defeat the "enemy"....by terrorizing them(make them surrender...)...or by eliminating them (murder)....

Armies are meant to defeat the "enemy"....by terrorizing them(make them surrender...)...or by eliminating them (murder)....

Not quite. Armies do not defeat enemies by terrorizing them... They make their enemies surrender by removing
a.) their means to fight, i.e. infrastructure, command & control
or
b.) their will to fight. (terrorizing them only strengthens their will or resolve to fight)

Eliminating their enemies is not murder. The term murder is, or should be, reserved for the killing of the defensless. It also should be reserved to the commision of a crime. Killing in a war is not automatically a crime.

why is protecting ones country a valid jsutification for inflicting death on another human being. I would perhaps understand if you said 'community' but country is far to abstract a concept to be of use. Of course feel free to provide a more meaningful definition of country.

I dont know why you chose to "abstract" the definition of country. I think it's pretty well universally understood.

If you dont believe protecting ones country is not justification for inflicting death on another human being, do you believe defense of anything justification? Why do you differentiate between community and country? Are you saying that, if someone came onto your block, and started shooting people on the street, it's justifiable to defend your "community" by killing the offender, but if someone attacks your country it's not ok to defend the country?

That just doenst make any sense.

Yes, the governments decisions are implemented through violence. The army have no say in those decisions, they kill on demand. Whether a government is democratic (representative - or at least pretending to be) or not is irrelevent, as the decision does not lie with the troops. They are the tool of violence used.
It is not irrelevant. An army that acts on the decisions of a government that represents the people will in almost all circumstances be more moral than an army that acts on the decisions of a government that does not represent the people, even if the means (violence) appear the same.

How do you define a "free nation"? The ends are abstract, any nation can use them as justification.
Sorry, but there is a difference between a free nation and the numerous slave-pens throughout the world. A government can try to justify itself and may even convince others, but its attempts don't make an evil government into a good one representing a free people. The attributes that define a free nation are numerous and even free nations are imperfect. I can give one attribute found in all free nations I know of: the ability of the people to replace their government.

To come up with a comprehensive definition of "free nation" look at the attributes in common between nations such as:
The United States
Great Britain
Canada
France
Norway

compare them to the attributes common between nations such as:
North Korea
Syria
Cuba
Iran
Libya

... The term murder is, or should be, reserved for the killing of the defensless. .lets see..a teen homeboy kills (with a shotgun) 4 other teens form a rival gang...IS THAT MURDER?

lets see..a teen homeboy kills (with a shotgun) 4 other teens form a rival gang...IS THAT MURDER?
Probably. But it depends on the context.

lets see..a teen homeboy kills (with a shotgun) 4 other teens form a rival gang...IS THAT MURDER?

Perhaps I didnt make the context clear in my post. I was refering to the application of the term murder to soldiers killing enemies in a war.

A soldier killing defensless people in a war (i.e. going door to door, shooting civilians who offer no resistance etc.) could be concidered murder.

A soldier killing someone who is shooting at him, or who is driving a truck with explosives toward him, etc is not murder.

We were discussing the purpose of war, not civilian criminal actions. Please do not confuse the two.

If you dont believe protecting ones country is not justification for inflicting death on another human being, do you believe defense of anything justification? Why do you differentiate between community and country? .......That just doenst make any sense.Palestineans make a hole on the wall...and cross into the Israel controlled side...shall they be murdered?

War is an integral part and process of civilisation. Civilisation is simply a system, like a rainforest for example; for the most part things run smoothly, but every now and then, much of the forest is burnt down by fire (by natural causes, eg lightning) allowing new life to grow and the cycle continues etc etc. Likewise, our societies sometimes disagree and go to war, limited destruction and death can benefit the system as a whole in the long term(as somebody already mentioned, we have medical advances, radar and other technology that has come about because of war).

I think Mel Gibson made a good point in the movie "Braveheart":


Wallace: Sons of Scotland, I am William Wallace.

Young soldier: William Wallace is 7 feet tall.

Wallace: Yes, I've heard. Kills men by the hundreds, and if he were here he'd consume the English with fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse. I am William Wallace. And I see a whole army of my countrymen here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What would you do without freedom? Will you fight?

Veteran soldier: Fight? Against that? No, we will run; and we will live.

Wallace: Aye, fight and you may die. Run and you'll live -- at least a while. And dying in your beds many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one chance to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!!!

HENRY V

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O'erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height. On, on, you noblest English.
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!
Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,
Have in these parts from morn till even fought
And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman,
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

Letila Thanks for calling me that and id have to agree with what the servicemen that i have never raped anyone or murdered anyone.

In fact right now i am at a military college, an E-3 in the national guard and in 3 year will be an officer in the Army. I do not have much experience but am idealistic.

Ok so soldiers are murderers, fine we kill other soldiers and civilians no matter how hard we try to minimize the latter. but in most cases they are trying to kill us in return.

The example of the Australian natives doesn’t apply world wide. look at the Incas and Aztecs, the Indians, Babylonians and most the other ancient people have been warring with one another since the start of time.

I’ve even had someone say to my face when I was in uniform that I was a killer a murderer. well I will never be a murderer...a killer maybe someday, but that difference is what separates the American soldier from that of Nazi Germany.

And food for thought here :
It is the soldier, not the poet, who gives us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the reporter, who gives us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us freedom to protest.
It is the soldier who serves beneath the flag, who salutes the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives the demonstrator the right to burn the flag."
-- Stephen Ambrose

And food for thought here :
It is the soldier, not the poet, who gives us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the reporter, who gives us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us freedom to protest.
It is the soldier who serves beneath the flag, who salutes the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives the demonstrator the right to burn the flag."
-- Stephen Ambrose

Those are fine words but it is not the soldier that decides to give us freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of speech and freedom of protest. It is elected 'civilians' that send them to war. It was never inevitable that the soldiers fighting on behalf of people that have those convictions prevailed. It is not inevitable that freedom will always triumph.

It's not the soldier's job to decide, true, but every soldier knows this. Being a soldier is a sacrifice.