NationStates Jolt Archive

I found this on the website http://everything2.com, and found myself agreeing. Alot.

--- --- ---

"There's nothing noble about being a soldier"

First of all, this is, of course, my personal opinion, and one that I know a large number of people will violently disagree with. However, a fact is often nothing more than a well-argued opinion and so I'll try to argue this one.
Being a soldier is an ugly, dirty and wrong job. It consists of killing people, training to kill people, or assisting others in killing people. In an ideal world, there would be no need for soldiers, so even if we may occasionally need them in our non-ideal world, there's no reason to glorify them.

Many people will tell you how the work of a soldier is to protect his country and that that's the greatest and most noble kind of work anyone can do. IMO they're either trying to bullshit you into fighting wars for them that will bring them (not you) more money and power, or they've bought into that lie themselves.

In the end, it's all about you, your gun, and that guy over there and his gun. You don't want to die so you'll try to kill him first, and that's easier if you hate him, and once you're frightened and hateful enough you'll try to kill all his buddies too, and eventually you'll care jack shit if you kill a couple, or a dozen, or a hundred innocent civilians, women and children, in the process of making sure there's nobody left who could kill you. You'll have made the world an uglier place and yourself an uglier person, and it will matter little if it seemed like a just cause at first. Even worse, technology makes it possible to do all this without endangering yourself very much, and without facing the consequences of your actions. People die screaming, lumps of torn and charred flesh, and the one who dropped the bomb and the one who ordered him will just talk and think about "accomplished objectives".

So what's supposed to be great and noble about that? Countries aren't people. They don't deserve loyalty or sacrifices. Patriotism is a tool used by power-hungy politicans to switch off people's brains and make them easier to control.

Yes, there are causes worth fighting, perhaps even killing for. A country is not. A form of society that enables people to live happily may be. The lives of your friends and family almost certainly are. But that doesn't make the fighting itself, or the preparation for it, in any way noble. At most, it should evoke the kind of respect one may feel towards garbage collectors - it's not a beautiful or clean job, but it's necessary (And in the case of war, this necessity should be thoroughly doubted in every case).

This may be long, but its worth a read.

Obviously , the above poster, has never been in the military, known anyone in the military, or has an IQ above that of a chimpanzee.


On Sheep, Sheepdogs, and Wolves

By Dave Grossman

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.
Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.
Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.
I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something
wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.
"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there that will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.
"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."...
If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.
Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, which is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.
But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.
The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.
Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."
Until the wolf shows up! Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.
The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them.
This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.
Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?
Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.
Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.
There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to
survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.
There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.
Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.
Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- From sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.
"Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"
"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men." - Edmund Burke
Here is the point I like to emphasize; especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.
If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust, or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.
For example, many officers carry their weapons in church. They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.
I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other
cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"
Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.
Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"
It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.
Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear, helplessness, and horror at your moment of truth.
Gavin de Becker puts it like this in "Fear Less," his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."
Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.
And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes.
If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself... "Baa."
This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically, at your moment of truth.

I didn't agree with the statement when I clicked into the thread, but now I also find myself agreeing.

One man's sheepdog is another man's wolf...

Are the distinctions anything but arbitrary, when both sides kill innocent people? What is the meaning of "evil"? What makes the sheepdog who drops a bomb on one country different from the wolf who blows himself up in the other?

A real sheepdog leaves the wolves alone while they do not come near the flock, you know. His business is looking after the sheep, not exterminating the wolves.

Edit: And while we're talking morality, equating the terrorists with wolves is just as slanderous to the wolves as it is to the sheepdogs to equate them with the "good guys". Wolves kill to eat. Sheepdogs kill to defend. To compare animals to humans almost always is very unfair to the animals.

But it's still the old "there are people out there...out there to GET YOU!"

Remember, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and perhaps people won't get the urge to kill you? The vast, VAST majority of people aren't "wolves". Terrorists are created from years of war, bitterness, death. Very few people want to die for nothing, just for the hell of it. The ones that *do* are so few they don't even constitute a widespread threat. What would drive a man to rise up, kill many people even if he dies in the process? These are the people finally getting back (in the wrong way IMHO) from having the boot of western military might stamping on their faces.

We have an army to protect us from our past actions. We have colonial Europe and modern US policy to blame.

Both convincing, interesting arguments. This thread should make for a good debate.

What about the soldiers who risk their lives to save others. When they go into battle-they know they can die. When you risk your life for someone else-that my friend is noble.

Here are some soldiers-

http://www.army.mil/yearinphotos/

I guess the one thats teaching the little girl how to brush her teeth is especially a scumbag huh?

War is a horrible ugly thing, but it exists. I wish it didnt but it does. :(

I think what you have to do is differentiate between the person and the institution. I'm sure alot of Nazi death camp guards were very nice people, if the institution didn't force them into an unfortunate position.

The soldier giving his life for his friend is a noble act among ignoble and tragic carnage. Why were they there? Why are they taking part in the killing?

Oh and I guess all the dead Iraqi civilians are thanking their benevolent liberators for the privelege?

And notice how it said, it isn't "noble". In an imperfect world, it could be said that being a soldier is nescessary, but not "noble". In what way did the article imply soldiers are scum?

Being a soldier is dirty, tough, and demanding work. It is "necessary" as you said. Perhaps the occupation is ignoble, but the person is noble for taking it up. For doing what others will not.

So, to blindly take up an ignoble cause is noble? No, that's called stupidity. It's like calling someone who jumps off a cliff noble and berating people who didn't as ignoble.

I think what you have to do is differentiate between the person and the institution. I'm sure alot of Nazi death camp guards were very nice people, if the institution didn't force them into an unfortunate position.

The soldier giving his life for his friend is a noble act among ignoble and tragic carnage. Why were they there? Why are they taking part in the killing?

Oh and I guess all the dead Iraqi civilians are thanking their benevolent liberators for the privelege?

And notice how it said, it isn't "noble". In an imperfect world, it could be said that being a soldier is nescessary, but not "noble". In what way did the article imply soldiers are scum?

Well you said dirty, ugly ,wrong job. What would you do if war hit on your homeland soil? If the opposite side busted into your house and dragged you and your family out in the yard and shot you just because? Youd be hoping a group of soldiers would show up and defend you -thats what youd be doing. Its hard to defend a soldier without sounding like you are approving of war....I said before-war is horrible and ugly. But its here and its been going on for years and someone has to be there to protect people. I think you are only portraying the killing side. LIke all soldiers just rush off the plane and look for someone to kill.

What about the soldiers who risk their lives to save others. When they go into battle-they know they can die. When you risk your life for someone else-that my friend is noble.

Here are some soldiers-

http://www.army.mil/yearinphotos/

I guess the one thats teaching the little girl how to brush her teeth is especially a scumbag huh?

War is a horrible ugly thing, but it exists. I wish it didnt but it does. :(

no, sacrificing yourself to push a friend out of the way of a speeding car is noble
-
getting shot or stabbed to prevent the stabbing or shooting of your friend is noble


going out and pro-actively killing other people for the engrained belief they are out to get you isnt really "noble"

(please note i said pro actively)

So, to blindly take up an ignoble cause is noble? No, that's called stupidity. It's like calling someone who jumps off a cliff noble and berating people who didn't as ignoble.

the soldier is protecting his country, his ideal, his whatever, which is noble. They are the people that protect your country so you don't have to.

So, to blindly take up an ignoble cause is noble? No, that's called stupidity. It's like calling someone who jumps off a cliff noble and berating people who didn't as ignoble.

No, its not like that. But people who jump off cliffs are stupid yes. A soldier who rushes into a burning building to save a mother and her 3 month old child is not. Did you know the women in Iraq who were waiting in long lines to receive medical attention had to be guarded by a soldiers because some of the terrorist groups were threatening to shoot any woman who accepted Medical attention from the US doctors? The guarding soldiers stood there, as a human shield with gun in hand to protect those women. You dont think thats respectable or noble? What exactly meets your standard of nobility?

Well you said dirty, ugly ,wrong job. What would you do if war hit on your homeland soil? If the opposite side busted into your house and dragged you and your family out in the yard and shot you just because? Youd be hoping a group of soldiers would show up and defend you -thats what youd be doing. Its hard to defend a soldier without sounding like you are approving of war....I said before-war is horrible and ugly. But its here and its been going on for years and someone has to be there to protect people. I think you are only portraying the killing side. LIke all soldiers just rush off the plane and look for someone to kill.

What if? It hasn't. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. These things don't pop out of nowhere. If there weren't soldiers, there wouldn't be wars hence, no invasions etc. However, there are, and there are wars. Far too many of them. You forget that a soldier is there for the primary purpose of killing and maiming, to "eliminate insurgents" or whatever. Soldiers aren't there to protect people for the most part - who's invading my homeland soil in your hypothetical situation? That's right, soldiers.

Soldier. Job? To kill people on command.

Simple.

No, its not like that. But people who jump off cliffs are stupid yes. A soldier who rushes into a burning building to save a mother and her 3 month old child is not. Did you know the women in Iraq who were waiting in long lines to receive medical attention had to be guarded by a soldiers because some of the terrorist groups were threatening to shoot any woman who accepted Medical attention from the US doctors? The guarding soldiers stood there, as a human shield with gun in hand to protect those women. You dont think thats respectable or noble? What exactly meets your standard of nobility?

Why would they need medical attention from US military doctors? Why are the insurgents free to roam and kill?

BECAUSE THE US INVADED.

Blowing up their hospitals isn't noble, either.

no, sacrificing yourself to push a friend out of the way of a speeding car is noble
-
getting shot or stabbed to prevent the stabbing or shooting of your friend is noble


going out and pro-actively killing other people for the engrained belief they are out to get you isnt really "noble"

So you are saying that is the only thing a soldier does? HMM...I think not. They risk getting shot or stabbed so that someone else doesnt have to. They arent away from their wives and husbands and children for a year or two at a time just so they can go have fun killing people. Have you ever seen the good work soldiers do? I'll ask you too-if a war broke out on your homeland soil- what would you do without an Army or group of soldiers to come to your defense? You think you could talk the enemy out of killing you and your family? If that were true-there would have be nor would ever be war again.

I have to say, I wish we didn't need soldiers.......I wish all people could be safe at peace.

It just isn't a fact.

While I do believe that the nobility of warriors is lessening with the advent of gun powder.......explosives......nuclear weapons, you can't deny the over-whelming courage such men show.

When two armies marched to battle and faced each other with home-made weapons and shields.....that was the ultimate test of courage. It does lose a little if you get hit by a bombardment from a ship so far away you can't see it, but it is still courage.

I have respect for any man who will do a job that I would be UNWILLING to do myself for any pay. I am a sheep.....so be it. Respect the soldier.

So you are saying that is the only thing a soldier does? HMM...I think not. They risk getting shot or stabbed so that someone else doesnt have to. They arent away from their wives and husbands and children for a year or two at a time just so they can go have fun killing people. Have you ever seen the good work soldiers do? I'll ask you too-if a war broke out on your homeland soil- what would you do without an Army or group of soldiers to come to your defense? You think you could talk the enemy out of killing you and your family? If that were true-there would have be nor would ever be war again.
i dunno, ask the iraqis, having noble foreign soldiers bust into your home looking for something. maybe dragging your insert random relative here out of your home


good and evil is relative. im sure the nazi soldiers were very noble people - to the other nazis

So you are saying that is the only thing a soldier does? HMM...I think not. They risk getting shot or stabbed so that someone else doesnt have to. They arent away from their wives and husbands and children for a year or two at a time just so they can go have fun killing people. Have you ever seen the good work soldiers do? I'll ask you too-if a war broke out on your homeland soil- what would you do without an Army or group of soldiers to come to your defense? You think you could talk the enemy out of killing you and your family? If that were true-there would have be nor would ever be war again.

But what about the case of an invasion, without any povocation or threat? Like Iraq? They have to go because it's their job, they're indoctrinated into hating the enemy, the Iraqis. You're still working on the flawed premise that there are people out there to get us - which there may be, and in either case it's our own bloody fault.

What if? It hasn't. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. These things don't pop out of nowhere. If there weren't soldiers, there wouldn't be wars hence, no invasions etc. However, there are, and there are wars. Far too many of them. You forget that a soldier is there for the primary purpose of killing and maiming, to "eliminate insurgents" or whatever. Soldiers aren't there to protect people for the most part - who's invading my homeland soil in your hypothetical situation? That's right, soldiers.

Soldier. Job? To kill people on command.

Simple.

Just because something hasnt happened doesnt mean it wont :rolleyes: . I guess you have a catch 22 then, because you are saying soldiers are bad because they invade, but then since you would need other soldiers to defend the ones who invade, -well are they bad too? Are they bad for defending the invaders? You said all soldiers. Soldiers job? Kill on command-yes I'm sure thats in the job description. It also comes with a truckload of other duties. Saving the lives of complete strangers is one of them. You know when someone gets lost at sea, a boat capsizes, plane crash-whatevre, who goes looking for those people? Who is sent to rescue those people? The Navy, Army, Coast Guard, Marines and whatever other soldier titles are held. No killing involved in that is there? Unless we didnt send the soldiers to rescue them.

The two sides of this particular argument are never going to agree. Just let me state my own opinion based on 19+ years of affiliation with the United States Army in one form or another and let it go at that:

The US military is one of the last repositories of true idealism and nobility of purpose. The military man or woman undertakes an often thankless job ... to defend and protect the rest of his or her countrymen.

During an unpopular war, he is reviled by those who cannot differentiate between the message and the messenger. During peacetime, he is forgotten. He quickly learns that those he can trust to understand and accept him are usually those with whom he serves.

He works at a dangerous, dirty, ugly job for pay that most big city streetsweepers would scoff at. And yet he perseveres, he adapts, he overcomes, and he almost always wins. Why? Because, believe it or not, he still believes in protecting the Constitution of the United States and the freedom it guarantees to us all.

As far as I am concerned, being a soldier is one of the most noble callings to which a man or woman can aspire.

Well you said dirty, ugly ,wrong job. What would you do if war hit on your homeland soil? If the opposite side busted into your house and dragged you and your family out in the yard and shot you just because?
Heck, Peech, this is exactly what an Iraqi must be thinking about US soldiers. For them the US Army is the opposite side, for them the war was brought to them for no reason, and I'm sure they'd like some soldiers of their own, some way to get back at the invader.

[QUOTE=The Polaris Society]One man's sheepdog is another man's wolf...

Are the distinctions anything but arbitrary, when both sides kill innocent people? What is the meaning of "evil"?

QUOTE]

I would say:

Intent to kill the innocent. That is the difference... intent.

When our bombs kill innocent people, you can bet that we tried hard not to hit them.

When they flew their planes into our Twin Towers, you can bet that their intent was to kill innocent people.

There's your distinction. It's really quite simple. It's why I can say with a straight face that we're the good guys in this ongoing conflict, and they are very clearly and unequivocally the side of evil.

We want freedom for people... they want persecution, oppression, iron-fist rule. Could go on and on, but the point has been made.

Iraq could have a vote to name the members of THEIR parliament/representative body, THEIR president, etc. The bad guys don't want that. Let's destroy the bad guys.

i dunno, ask the iraqis, having noble foreign soldiers bust into your home looking for something. maybe dragging your insert random relative here out of your home


good and evil is relative. im sure the nazi soldiers were very noble people - to the other nazis

We arent talking about the Nazis. Youre an intelligent person. Youve read my point and you can see I am not saying the Nazi's were valid in their actions. They were mass murderers. I didnt say "soldiers dont kill anyone". I am saying that a soldier does has nobility for the tasks they are required to do. I'm not in support of mass genocide for Gods sake. I'm saying they have a hell of a lot more responsibility that we could even fathom. By the way-have you seen the videos of the beheadings of the people who were kidnapped over there? Thats the most brutal horrible thing I;ve ever seen and I hope a someone, be it a soldier or a milk man hunts them down and does the same to them.

Just because something hasnt happened doesnt mean it wont :rolleyes: . I guess you have a catch 22 then, because you are saying soldiers are bad because they invade, but then since you would need other soldiers to defend the ones who invade, -well are they bad too? Are they bad for defending the invaders? You said all soldiers. Soldiers job? Kill on command-yes I'm sure thats in the job description. It also comes with a truckload of other duties. Saving the lives of complete strangers is one of them. You know when someone gets lost at sea, a boat capsizes, plane crash-whatevre, who goes looking for those people? Who is sent to rescue those people? The Navy, Army, Coast Guard, Marines and whatever other soldier titles are held. No killing involved in that is there? Unless we didnt send the soldiers to rescue them.

Who says we need to send soldiers to those situations? Why not train other rescue services?

Why would there be an invasion of enemy soldiers if there were no soldiers on the other side? Self defense I can understand - why not do what the Japanese did after WWII and forbid going out and joining in invasions?

Also using a highly improbable situation would be akin to saying "Would you suck off your dad if your life depended on it?" (immature question done in year 7 P.E...*shudders*)

And I never said soldiers are bad. I just said the job was dirty, ignoble and avoidable in an ideal world. There's nothing wrong with wanting to move towards utopia - "shoot for the moon, even if you miss you'll be amongst the stars"

We arent talking about the Nazis. Youre an intelligent person. Youve read my point and you can see I am not saying the Nazi's were valid in their actions. They were mass murderers. I didnt say "soldiers dont kill anyone". I am saying that a soldier does has nobility for the tasks they are required to do. I'm not in support of mass genocide for Gods sake. I'm saying they have a hell of a lot more responsibility that we could even fathom. By the way-have you seen the videos of the beheadings of the people who were kidnapped over there? Thats the most brutal horrible thing I;ve ever seen and I hope a someone, be it a soldier or a milk man hunts them down and does the same to them.

I think the Nazi reference was used to refer to the fact that our concepts of good and evil are relative. Also, see my reference to person v. the institution beforehand. The beheadings are sick, but what about Abu Ghraib and other independent observers reporting on torture and excecution by the US armed forces? Is it only wrong when those "damned towelheads" does it?

The difference between killing someone directly with the intent of doing so and just dropping a bomb is immaterial. Sure, it may help the soldier sleep at night, they won't be able to hear the sobs, screams of grief at the dead civilians family. It's still killing.

The US military is one of the last repositories of true idealism and nobility of purpose. The military man or woman undertakes an often thankless job ... to defend and protect the rest of his or her countrymen.


I agree that the young men and women who go to serve their country in the armed forces are some of the most noble people on this planet. However, that doesn't mean that the institution itself is being used with noble purposes, or that everything it does comes from that nobility.

A soldier's job is to obey without question those orders that come from the policy makers of his country, whose objectives are not always noble. Although I find much to admire in a soldier's character, blind obedience is not one of those traits.

And the kick is that most armies disguise that blind obedience as honor, tradition, valor and courage to make it easier to swallow. The result is the same: uncritically follow orders, if you must question do it later.

Heck, Peech, this is exactly what an Iraqi must be thinking about US soldiers. For them the US Army is the opposite side, for them the war was brought to them for no reason, and I'm sure they'd like some soldiers of their own, some way to get back at the invader.

Do you honestly think the US soldiers are pulling people out of their houses and cutting their heads off like those bastards did to Eugene Armstrong and Jack Hensley and all of the others whose name I cant remember? No they arent.

We want freedom for people... they want persecution, oppression, iron-fist rule. Could go on and on, but the point has been made.
Yeah, but who defines "we" and "they"?

Do you honestly think the US soldiers are pulling people out of their houses and cutting their heads off like those bastards did to Eugene Armstrong and Jack Hensley and all of the others whose name I cant remember? No they arent.

Yes, the US soldiers are pulling people out of their houses in the middle of the night - the dreaded midnight knock on the door from Saddam's time hasn't gone, it's just different people doing it. There have been reports of serious abuse, killing and torture of these people.

"I saw them torture a prisoner to death. They said if we informed the red cross, they would kill us too" - Iraqi coalition prisoner

Yeah, but who defines "we" and "they"?

Obviously because the 9/11 hijackers were muslim/arabs, and Osama bin laden is leading them in the Afghanistan area, and none of them held Iraqi citizenship, hell, even Al-Quaeda was AGAINST the Iraqi government...

...then Iraq must be a terrorist country, behind the 9/11 attacks!

The US invaded Iraq under no provocation or any threat of WMD, you only fell on the "liberation of the people" gambit once you ran out of legitimate excuses. If you're going to go about liberating people, what makes Iraq so special? Why go to bed with Gadaffi, his people sure are opressed. What about China? Etc, etc.

Do you honestly think the US soldiers are pulling people out of their houses and cutting their heads off like those bastards did to Eugene Armstrong and Jack Hensley and all of the others whose name I cant remember? No they arent.
They may not be cutting their heads off, but they are taking them out of their houses, locking them without trial, submitting them to torture and illegal interrogations and some of them have died "accidentally" while in detention. Some are sent to third countries, more inclined to torture and execution, willing to act as proxy jailers.

Perhaps the violence is more sophisticated and covered in sweet language, but it's the same violence. The main difference is that the US doesn't videotape it and use it as propaganda.

I agree that the young men and women who go to serve their country in the armed forces are some of the most noble people on this planet. However, that doesn't mean that the institution itself is being used with noble purposes, or that everything it does comes from that nobility.

A soldier's job is to obey without question those orders that come from the policy makers of his country, whose objectives are not always noble. Although I find much to admire in a soldier's character, blind obedience is not one of those traits.

And the kick is that most armies disguise that blind obedience as honor, tradition, valor and courage to make it easier to swallow. The result is the same: uncritically follow orders, if you must question do it later.

Right-you said it wellup there^^

...a soldier can be noble even if the institution is not. And Pinko keeps referring to the war in Iraq, thats not the only war in history dear. Just because you dont agree with the presence of soldiers in Iraq, doesnt negate the good work of soldiers of the past, nor lump them into a stereotyped category of "people who arent noble".
And you said before that you didnt say soldiers were bad......you said theres no reason to glorify them, they do a dirty ugly job,and then all of this:

In the end, it's all about you, your gun, and that guy over there and his gun. You don't want to die so you'll try to kill him first, and that's easier if you hate him, and once you're frightened and hateful enough you'll try to kill all his buddies too, and eventually you'll care jack shit if you kill a couple, or a dozen, or a hundred innocent civilians, women and children, in the process of making sure there's nobody left who could kill you. You'll have made the world an uglier place and yourself an uglier person, and it will matter little if it seemed like a just cause at first. Even worse, technology makes it possible to do all this without endangering yourself very much, and without facing the consequences of your actions. People die screaming, lumps of torn and charred flesh, and the one who dropped the bomb and the one who ordered him will just talk and think about "accomplished objectives".

So what's supposed to be great and noble about that? Countries aren't people. They don't deserve loyalty or sacrifices. Patriotism is a tool used by power-hungy politicans to switch off people's brains and make them easier to control.

Yes, there are causes worth fighting, perhaps even killing for. A country is not. A form of society that enables people to live happily may be. The lives of your friends and family almost certainly are. But that doesn't make the fighting itself, or the preparation for it, in any way noble. At most, it should evoke the kind of respect one may feel towards garbage collectors - it's not a beautiful or clean job, but it's necessary (And in the case of war, this necessity should be thoroughly doubted in every case


now why would I have gotten the notion that you felt soldiers were bad?

They may not be cutting their heads off, but they are taking them out of their houses, locking them without trial, submitting them to torture and illegal interrogations and some of them have died "accidentally" while in detention. Some are sent to third countries, more inclined to torture and execution, willing to act as proxy jailers.

Perhaps the violence is more sophisticated and covered in sweet language, but it's the same violence. The main difference is that the US doesn't videotape it and use it as propaganda.

So is it fair because of some immoral soldiers actions, to say that all soldiers are murderers or not worthy to be labeled noble? :(

... if you must question do it later.
And possibly be courtmartialed for it? The oath a soldier takes states in part, "obey the lawful orders of my commissioned and non-commissioned officers." Notice the word "lawful." It's a well-established principle of military jurisprudence that knowingly obeying an UN-lawful order constitutes sufficient grounds for court martial. In the rare event of an officer or non-commissioned officer ordering a soldier to shoot a civilian or a POW, following that order could easily earn the soldier the death sentance ( and lest someone pounce on this, the same thing goes for the officer or non-com who gave the order ).

So is it fair because of some immoral soldiers actions, to say that all soldiers are murderers or not worthy to be labeled noble? :(

Is it fair because of some immoral insurgents, to say that all insurgents are murderers or not worthy to be labelled noble?

Just switch the names around mate, and it still works.

And Pinko keeps referring to the war in Iraq, thats not the only war in history dear.

It happens to be the one we're currently involved in and this debate is more pertinent...mate.

There is plenty of things that are noble about the soilder. Think of how many rescues the coast gaurd provides each year. Think of the airmen who delivered supplies to Berlin and saved thousands in the 1950's. The soilder who gives a helping hand after a disaster on the other side of the world. Is that not noble.

So is it fair because of some immoral soldiers actions, to say that all soldiers are murderers or not worthy to be labeled noble? :(
Is it fair because of some immoral insurgents actions to say that all insurgents are murderers and deserving of the "terrorist" label?

We arent talking about the Nazis. Youre an intelligent person. Youve read my point and you can see I am not saying the Nazi's were valid in their actions. They were mass murderers. I didnt say "soldiers dont kill anyone". I am saying that a soldier does has nobility for the tasks they are required to do. I'm not in support of mass genocide for Gods sake. I'm saying they have a hell of a lot more responsibility that we could even fathom. By the way-have you seen the videos of the beheadings of the people who were kidnapped over there? Thats the most brutal horrible thing I;ve ever seen and I hope a someone, be it a soldier or a milk man hunts them down and does the same to them.
and im saying the soldiers of nazi germany were soldiers and the nazis were doing the "noble" "job" they were told to do - extermination of "inferiors"

its alll relative and i assuemd you got the comparison



and yes thats very noble mindset :rolleyes: hunt down and kill people because they did something that is evil !

Is it fair because of some immoral insurgents, to say that all insurgents are murderers or not worthy to be labelled noble?

Just switch the names around mate, and it still works.
If you can't tell the difference, then my posts to this thread are at an end. I refuse to engage in a discussion about nobility with someone so seriously lacking in perceptiveness. If you affiliate with an organization which not only approves of murdering innocent civilians but actively encourages it, you have placed yourself beyond the pale, as far as I'm concerned.

Is it fair because of some immoral insurgents, to say that all insurgents are murderers or not worthy to be labelled noble?

Just switch the names around mate, and it still works.

Then I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree. I think a soldier or two might have died so that we may have that right btw.

I think that a soldier is put in the position to be of the most noble character that ever lived. Its just really sad that they are also put into the position to have to make the choice to end anothers life. I respect the men and women...not the idea and actions of war.

and im saying the soldiers of nazi germany were soldiers and the nazis were doing the "noble" "job" they were told to do - extermination of "inferiors"

its alll relative and i assuemd you got the comparison



and yes thats very noble mindset :rolleyes: hunt down and kill people because they did something that is evil !

Youd change your tune if that was your father over there that they beheaded just for kicks and then you saw it on the internet.

Then I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree. I think a soldier or two might have died so that we may have that right btw.

I think that a soldier is put in the position to be of the most noble character that ever lived. Its just really sad that they are also put into the position to have to make the choice to end anothers life. I respect the men and women...not the idea and actions of war.

So it's known... my opinion is blindly following orders is the surefire way of wartime atrocities happening.

And possibly be courtmartialed for it? The oath a soldier takes states in part, "obey the lawful orders of my commissioned and non-commissioned officers." Notice the word "lawful." It's a well-established principle of military jurisprudence that knowingly obeying an UN-lawful order constitutes sufficient grounds for court martial. In the rare event of an officer or non-commissioned officer ordering a soldier to shoot a civilian or a POW, following that order could easily earn the soldier the death sentance ( and lest someone pounce on this, the same thing goes for the officer or non-com who gave the order ).
And I understand that that's necessary for the good workings of an army, especially in the heat of battle when you have not time to stop to think and question the morality of the orders you are receiving. And that's what makes blind obedience so dangerous. There is also the risk of being called unpatriotic, unloyal, especially in this war, if you don't obey a superior officer's orders. And if everybody stays quiet, no one will suffer and we will all have defended our country better.

Again, patriotism, loyalty and courage, the most noble traits of any human being, perverted by the powers-that-be into blind obedience.

Is it fair because of some immoral insurgents actions to say that all insurgents are murderers and deserving of the "terrorist" label?

But I'm not stereotyping, the thread originator is. I never said all soldiers are wholesome moral fellows, but neither did I say all insurgents are terrorists.

If you can't tell the difference, then my posts to this thread are at an end. I refuse to engage in a discussion about nobility with someone so seriously lacking in perceptiveness. If you affiliate with an organization which not only approves of murdering innocent civilians but actively encourages it, you have placed yourself beyond the pale, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not affiliating, I'm just comparing it, I don't like having slogans chanted at me under the guise of a debate. Many soldiers have and do take part in the murder of innocents. Hell, in my mind it's ALL killing. Soldiers, civilians, whatever. Where the hell do we get off on killing each other?

For ideology?

For resources?

For some vaguely defined notion of patriotism, or indeed, nobility?

Christ, we just need to *put the weapons down for a minute while we figure out what we're doing*

And as a little breather, a poem by the WWI soldier Wilfred Owen. The translation of the latin is "It is sweet and noble to die for ones country".

DULCE ET DECORUM EST

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.
Gas! Gas! Quick, boys -- An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime...
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.

And I understand that that's necessary for the good workings of an army, especially in the heat of battle when you have not time to stop to think and question the morality of the orders you are receiving. And that's what makes blind obedience so dangerous. There is also the risk of being called unpatriotic, unloyal, especially in this war, if you don't obey a superior officer's orders. And if everybody stays quiet, no one will suffer and we will all have defended our country better.

Again, patriotism, loyalty and courage, the most noble traits of any human being, perverted by the powers-that-be into blind obedience.
This is impossible. I leave you to your own version of Asopean fables.

Is it fair because of some immoral insurgents actions to say that all insurgents are murderers and deserving of the "terrorist" label?
Not a valid comparison. When soldiers of the US army commit unlawful or immoral acts, there is an investigation, court martial, and punishment as warranted. I don't recall the last time the "insurgents" did an investigation into their latest beheading or suicide bombing . . .

If you can't tell the difference, then my posts to this thread are at an end. I refuse to engage in a discussion about nobility with someone so seriously lacking in perceptiveness. If you affiliate with an organization which not only approves of murdering innocent civilians but actively encourages it, you have placed yourself beyond the pale, as far as I'm concerned.
Oh, I can tell the difference. Can you tell the similarities? Are you aware of how easily dismissed civilian deaths are dismissed as "collateral damage" and how coldly calculated it is? Sure, I don't condone terrorist attacks, they are dispeakable, but so is a war fought for nefarious purposes of regional control and policy enforcement.

Who is better? The US soldier who has sworn to give his life for his country and is risking it half a world away from his family, or the young starry-eyed martyr who thinks he is serving his god and defending his family against a foreign occupier no matter what the price?

Who is worse? The corporation-controlled politician whose objective is to ensure the survival and profit making of his country's corporations for the next century, or the scheming ayatollah willing to kill untold innocents to insure the survival of his religion?

If you want to make it about black and white and are unwilling to discuss in any other terms, then go ahead and leave the debate.

Well I'm all for disposing of war! Now if we could only work together as a planet to do that.


While I dont agree with the opinion that soldiers are not noble, I appreciate each of you and your feelings on the matter. I still think they are noble and well worthy of respect.

I'm not affiliating, I'm just comparing it, I don't like having slogans chanted at me under the guise of a debate. Many soldiers have and do take part in the murder of innocents. Hell, in my mind it's ALL killing. Soldiers, civilians, whatever. Where the hell do we get off on killing each other?

For ideology?

For resources?

For some vaguely defined notion of patriotism, or indeed, nobility?

Christ, we just need to *put the weapons down for a minute while we figure out what we're doing*


Yes, soldiers never solved anything - except freeing Europe and stopping the Holocaust, ridding the US of slavery in its civil war, starting the first constitutional democracy in the US Revolutionary War, ... shall I go on? Like it or not, war does solve problems when won by those who believe in the ideals of goodness, decency, democracy, and freedom.

Oh, I can tell the difference. Can you tell the similarities? Are you aware of how easily dismissed civilian deaths are dismissed as "collateral damage" and how coldly calculated it is? Sure, I don't condone terrorist attacks, they are dispeakable, but so is a war fought for nefarious purposes of regional control and policy enforcement.

Who is better? The US soldier who has sworn to give his life for his country and is risking it half a world away from his family, or the young starry-eyed martyr who thinks he is serving his god and defending his family against a foreign occupier no matter what the price?

Who is worse? The corporation-controlled politician whose objective is to ensure the survival and profit making of his country's corporations for the next century, or the scheming ayatollah willing to kill untold innocents to insure the survival of his religion?

If you want to make it about black and white and are unwilling to discuss in any other terms, then go ahead and leave the debate.
The young, starry-eyed martyr, who was not poor and was actually upper-middle class Saudi, for the most part, killed 3000 of my countrymen before any invasion took place.

Yes, soldiers never solved anything - except freeing Europe and stopping the Holocaust, ridding the US of slavery in its civil war, starting the first constitutional democracy in the US Revolutionary War, ... shall I go on? Like it or not, war does solve problems when won by those who believe in the ideals of goodness, decency, democracy, and freedom.

As you should also remember it was German soldiers who enslaved europe during the occupation, soldiers who fought for the slave owners in the civil war, fought against the revolutionaries, etc etc.

The "bad guys" have soldiers too. What happens when neither side has em? They don't clash that way.

The young, starry-eyed martyr, who was not poor and was actually upper-middle class Saudi, for the most part, killed 3000 of my countrymen before any invasion took place.

How many muslims, arabs, people of all creeds and nationalities have suffered as a result of US foreign policy? 9/11 was tragic but it was the shades of the past haunting the US once more. This destructive notion that the US can go and do what the hell it wants without consequences could prove to be its downfall.

As you should also remember it was German soldiers who enslaved europe during the occupation, soldiers who fought for the slave owners in the civil war, fought against the revolutionaries, etc etc.

The "bad guys" have soldiers too. What happens when neither side has em? They don't clash that way.
And just when do you suppose that will be? Until the bad guys do not have soldiers, how are you supposed to stop them? Make nice-nice, give them flowers? You do it just the way we did - go to war against them and right the injustices they perpetrated. Do you honestly believe the Germans would have ended the war if we just asked them to? For God's sake, Europe practically gave the place to him before he launched an attack on Poland anyway. Evil people will do evil things, regardless of how much we would like to think that if we just treat them nice, they'll leave us alone.

The young, starry-eyed martyr, who was not poor and was actually upper-middle class Saudi, for the most part, killed 3000 of my countrymen before any invasion took place.
And, of course, this is supposed to be an eye for an eye, after all. How's the score?

This is impossible. I leave you to your own version of Asopean fables.
Well argued. I surrender to the contundency of your arguments and take a bow at your unwavering powers of logic and persuasion.

As you should also remember it was German soldiers who enslaved europe during the occupation, soldiers who fought for the slave owners in the civil war, fought against the revolutionaries, etc etc.

The "bad guys" have soldiers too. What happens when neither side has em? They don't clash that way.



How many muslims, arabs, people of all creeds and nationalities have suffered as a result of US foreign policy? 9/11 was tragic but it was the shades of the past haunting the US once more. This destructive notion that the US can go and do what the hell it wants without consequences could prove to be its downfall.
How many muslims, arabs, people of all creeds and nationalities have benefitted as a result of US foreign policy? All of Europe after WWII was rebuilt with US money - ever heard of the Marshall Plan? How many Muslims were protected, in spite of the UN, in Kosovo and Yugoslavia? I don't say that US foreign policy is unblemished, but nothing that would justify the slaughter of 9/11. Actually, according to you, all soldiers are bad, so 9/11 shouldn't be justified anyway.

And just when do you suppose that will be? Until the bad guys do not have soldiers, how are you supposed to stop them? Make nice-nice, give them flowers? You do it just the way we did - go to war against them and right the injustices they perpetrated. Do you honestly believe the Germans would have ended the war if we just asked them to? For God's sake, Europe practically gave the place to him before he launched an attack on Poland anyway. Evil people will do evil things, regardless of how much we would like to think that if we just treat them nice, they'll leave us alone.

WWII would have never happened without WWI, which would have never happened without European imperialist colonialism, without such concentrations of power and authoritarianism, without resorting to force.

In the end, *everyone* is a bad guy.

How many muslims, arabs, people of all creeds and nationalities have benefitted as a result of US foreign policy? All of Europe after WWII was rebuilt with US money - ever heard of the Marshall Plan? How many Muslims were protected, in spite of the UN, in Kosovo and Yugoslavia? I don't say that US foreign policy is unblemished, but nothing that would justify the slaughter of 9/11. Actually, according to you, all soldiers are bad, so 9/11 shouldn't be justified anyway.

Good point, but could you clarify the last bit about 9/11 not sure what you're saying.

WWII would have never happened without WWI, which would have never happened without European imperialist colonialism, without such concentrations of power and authoritarianism, without resorting to force.

In the end, *everyone* is a bad guy.



Good point, but could you clarify the last bit about 9/11 not sure what you're saying.
Clarification - you seem to be justifying 9/11 because of oppressive US foreign policy, while at the same time condemning soldiers and war as simpler murderers and killing.
How WW2 happened is not the issue. The issue is that Germany took two countries without firing a shot, and then still attacked Poland, and then went about the Holocaust. I am still waiting for your nonviolent solution to that problem.

And, of course, this is supposed to be an eye for an eye, after all. How's the score?
I wasn't talking about evening "the score". I was demonstating that there is no moral equivalency between "the starry eyed martyr" he referred to, and the US soldiers, who we do not send to blow themselves up, do not deliberately target civilians, and when we do screw up, we have mechanisms in place to correct and punish those responsible. No one has yet shown me the internal system of justice the "insurgents" use to punish their own when they commit suicide bombings, beheadings, etc. Oh, that's right - they have none!

And possibly be courtmartialed for it? The oath a soldier takes states in part, "obey the lawful orders of my commissioned and non-commissioned officers." Notice the word "lawful." It's a well-established principle of military jurisprudence that knowingly obeying an UN-lawful order constitutes sufficient grounds for court martial. In the rare event of an officer or non-commissioned officer ordering a soldier to shoot a civilian or a POW, following that order could easily earn the soldier the death sentance ( and lest someone pounce on this, the same thing goes for the officer or non-com who gave the order ).

But heaven help the soldier who has the balls to see that his commanders are being asked to do something amoral in an amoral war and to take that complaint to the top, to tell the congress itself that it is unduly abusing the sacrafice of the countries young men. And heaven help that man should he decide thirty years later to run for president...we wouldn't want that sense of responsability in office, no-rather a privilaged drunk who will play off his father's cowboy fantasies....and continue to abuse the sacrafice of our young men because we do not really honor the soldiers with enough honor to stand up when something is wrong and say it is.

I wasn't talking about evening "the score". I was demonstating that there is no moral equivalency between "the starry eyed martyr" he referred to, and the US soldiers, who we do not send to blow themselves up, do not deliberately target civilians, and when we do screw up, we have mechanisms in place to correct and punish those responsible. No one has yet shown me the internal system of justice the "insurgents" use to punish their own when they commit suicide bombings, beheadings, etc. Oh, that's right - they have none!
Actually, it was me who referred to the starry-eyed martyr. I understand the confusion because it seems Commie Pinko Scum and me have been parroting each other, although we disagree in one fundamental point.

Anyway. There certainly is no moral comparison between the US Army and the terrorist organizations. Even though the US Army can and is manipulated for political purposes, it still is vastly morally superior to a terrorist organization. The US Army has much more strict procedures to ensure that ideals are achieved and that the common good is protected.

However, when you dig down deep into why an individual soldier puts his life at risk going into battle even though he knows he can die, and also that some innocents will die by his hand due to the inevitability of war; and why an otherwise perfectly normal young man with his whole life ahead decides to kill himself and a bunch of other people he doesn't personally hold a grudge against, you start to see more similarities than not.

They both are doing it for an ideal, for something bigger than themselves. Are they both blinded by that ideal? Undoubtedly. Can they both be manipulated into committing attrocities? Of course, we know it happens, sadly it has happened.

Sure, the US soldier doesn't want to kill innocents; for the martyr there are no innocents. Perhaps an inexcusable difference, but one that is fundamental to correctly understand both sides.

Garbage collectors ARE noble. They are some of the noblest people in our society.

Actually, it was me who referred to the starry-eyed martyr. I understand the confusion because it seems Commie Pinko Scum and me have been parroting each other, although we disagree in one fundamental point.

Anyway. There certainly is no moral comparison between the US Army and the terrorist organizations. Even though the US Army can and is manipulated for political purposes, it still is vastly morally superior to a terrorist organization. The US Army has much more strict procedures to ensure that ideals are achieved and that the common good is protected.

However, when you dig down deep into why an individual soldier puts his life at risk going into battle even though he knows he can die, and also that some innocents will die by his hand due to the inevitability of war; and why an otherwise perfectly normal young man with his whole life ahead decides to kill himself and a bunch of other people he doesn't personally hold a grudge against, you start to see more similarities than not.

They both are doing it for an ideal, for something bigger than themselves. Are they both blinded by that ideal? Undoubtedly. Can they both be manipulated into committing attrocities? Of course, we know it happens, sadly it has happened.

Sure, the US soldier doesn't want to kill innocents; for the martyr there are no innocents. Perhaps an inexcusable difference, but one that is fundamental to correctly understand both sides.
Of course their are similarities! The only difference betwee me and a serial killer is that I decide not to act on my murderous impulses. Motives are certainly important, but actions are what defines a person. When someone deliberately targets civilians, and uses children and teenagers in suicide bombings, that person's actions define them as a terrorist. When a US soldier goes to Iraq, kills Iraqi military, and turns around and rebuilds the place better than before, that defines that person as noble.

Garbage collectors ARE noble. They are some of the noblest people in our society.
And I hear they get paid pretty well, too. Must have a good union!

Youd change your tune if that was your father over there that they beheaded just for kicks and then you saw it on the internet.

Quite probably, yes. But that would be an emotional reaction, not a rational one. Emotionally, practically everyone will value their own friends and family far above people who they don't know, simply because those friends and family have had a greater impact on their lives- which, incidentally, is why jurors aren't allowed to attend cases in which the accused is someone they know.

Reminds me of one riposte I once heard to the common anti-animal rightsist question of "Would you kill an animal to save your father?"

"I'd kill you to save my father, but that wouldn't make it right."

When a US soldier goes to Iraq, kills Iraqi military, and turns around and rebuilds the place better than before, that defines that person as noble.

Say that China became vastly more powerful and wealthy than the US and invaded. Is the Chinese soilder who goes to America, kills American military and turns around an rebuilds the place better than before, albeit under a communist regime, noble? You may say that their method of rule is against freedom and everything, but people just don't understand that not everyone shares the same ideas of what freedom is.

I found this on the website http://everything2.com, and found myself agreeing. Alot.

--- --- ---

"There's nothing noble about being a soldier"

First of all, this is, of course, my personal opinion, and one that I know a large number of people will violently disagree with. However, a fact is often nothing more than a well-argued opinion and so I'll try to argue this one.
Being a soldier is an ugly, dirty and wrong job. It consists of killing people, training to kill people, or assisting others in killing people. In an ideal world, there would be no need for soldiers, so even if we may occasionally need them in our non-ideal world, there's no reason to glorify them.

Many people will tell you how the work of a soldier is to protect his country and that that's the greatest and most noble kind of work anyone can do. IMO they're either trying to bullshit you into fighting wars for them that will bring them (not you) more money and power, or they've bought into that lie themselves.

In the end, it's all about you, your gun, and that guy over there and his gun. You don't want to die so you'll try to kill him first, and that's easier if you hate him, and once you're frightened and hateful enough you'll try to kill all his buddies too, and eventually you'll care jack shit if you kill a couple, or a dozen, or a hundred innocent civilians, women and children, in the process of making sure there's nobody left who could kill you. You'll have made the world an uglier place and yourself an uglier person, and it will matter little if it seemed like a just cause at first. Even worse, technology makes it possible to do all this without endangering yourself very much, and without facing the consequences of your actions. People die screaming, lumps of torn and charred flesh, and the one who dropped the bomb and the one who ordered him will just talk and think about "accomplished objectives".

So what's supposed to be great and noble about that? Countries aren't people. They don't deserve loyalty or sacrifices. Patriotism is a tool used by power-hungy politicans to switch off people's brains and make them easier to control.

Yes, there are causes worth fighting, perhaps even killing for. A country is not. A form of society that enables people to live happily may be. The lives of your friends and family almost certainly are. But that doesn't make the fighting itself, or the preparation for it, in any way noble. At most, it should evoke the kind of respect one may feel towards garbage collectors - it's not a beautiful or clean job, but it's necessary (And in the case of war, this necessity should be thoroughly doubted in every case).

AMEN!!!!

I see nothing noble in glorifying killing. War is the tool of the elite rulers who seek to realize their greedy agendas through the blood sweat and tears of the duped underclass. War is of the dark ages. It is unnecessary in a truly enlightened age.

If you feel that war should be a part of daily life, then please hop on the nearest time machine you can find and take your happy ass back to 1390 because you sure as hell don't belong in the world of 2004!

Of course their are similarities! The only difference betwee me and a serial killer is that I decide not to act on my murderous impulses. Motives are certainly important, but actions are what defines a person. When someone deliberately targets civilians, and uses children and teenagers in suicide bombings, that person's actions define them as a terrorist. When a US soldier goes to Iraq, kills Iraqi military, and turns around and rebuilds the place better than before, that defines that person as noble.
And here is the fundamental difference between me and Commie Pinko. He says that soldiers are not noble. I say they are. All soldiers, not only those on "our" side. But they are capable of committing ignoble acts, since their governments or leaders can use that nobility and twist it around for their purposes.

And you seem to agree with me when you say "When someone deliberately targets civilians, and uses children and teenagers in suicide bombings, that person's actions define them as a terrorist". You are making a distinction between the person who orders the attack and that who carries the attack. In the same way that a distinction can be made between the politician who orders a war and the soldier that goes around the world to fight it.

Another difference between Commie Pink and me is that he thinks that war exists because there are soldiers. Of course, that's wrong. Soldiers exist because there is war. They are an effect not a cause.

And the cause of war is the search for power. Power to say what is to be done, who is to say it and who is to do it. Power to force people to agree with you. Even the current USA war of terror is a war for power.

I don't know if there will ever be a time when we all can agree to share power and not try to impose our power on others. Until such times soldiers and armies will be necessary.

And I hear they get paid pretty well, too. Must have a good union!

UNION??? :eek: DAMN!!! I only got $8.5 an hour!!!

HONOR - http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000012.html

FREEDOM - http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000013.html

EMPIRE - http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000017.html

WAR - http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000027.html

COURAGE - http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000033.html

CONFIDENCE - http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000035.html

HISTORY - http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000039.html

VICTORY - http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000046.html

TRINITY(part 1-Not about religion) - http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000056.html

TRINITY(part 2-Not about religion) - http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000057.html

RESPONSIBILITY - http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000062.html

POWER - http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000066.html

STRENGTH(part 1) - http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000099.html

STRENGTH(part 2) - http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000100.html

DETERRENCE(part 1) - http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000108.html

DETERRENCE(part 2) - http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000107.html

Read them, all of them. you might learn some things.

Compared to the whining bleeding-heart liberals who do nothing but complain and moan about how evil war is, I find soldiers who just shut up and kill people to be very noble. Of course, that's just on a relative scale.

Soldiers, regular and irregular, are young men and women willing to die for a cause, as history proves the young are willing to do. The nature of the military is to obey your chain of command. The US military excels at this.

In the US the President, a civilian, is in charge of the military. He commands them, with the approval of Congress. With few exceptions, the military obeys. This is a good way. The military is designed to kill. The President is a diplomat, whose purpose is to negotiate a peaceful solution. The US president utlize the military as a last resort, when diplomatic solutions fail.

Responsibility for electing the President lies on the US citizen's head. It is our responsibility to elect Presidents and congresspeople to lead our country and our military. If we choose greedy and selfish leaders, we can expect our military to be misused. If we choose righteous and fair leaders, we can expect our military to be used well.

Thank God our military obeys our civilian leadership. It's not our military that should be villified. It is a tool, the finest weapon in the world, our President's scepter. The most powerful military in the world requires fair leadership. It's misuse is too devastating. The villains are those that misuse it. And those that elect said villains to office.

Being a soldier is noble. Young people put their lives on the line for the country and the way of life they believe in, whether they have it or want it. It's the same in every country. It's the master's hand that guides the sword, and ultimately every country's character is judged by their use of violence to achieve their goals. In the US, soldiers are commanded by civilians. The will of the people guide the sword.

Thank you Liberated Citizens - very well said !

or a it's said else where - "What LC said!"

The problem is not within soldiers being bad or liberals being whiny (even though both statements probably are true), there is merely a flaw in human thinking at work.

True, the terrorists shouldn't have committed 9/11 even though it was justified for them through their reasoning (even if that reasoning was flawed: jealousy against the successes of America and Christianity). However, two wrongs don't make a right. Only three rights can make a left.

America should never have 'invaded' anywhere. Especially not if the terrorists weren't DIRECTLY related to that nation (coughcoughIraq). First of all, revenge counts as a wrong, and "killing two birds with one stone and getting Saddam out" is a wrong. On the count of revenge, we do not have some kind of right to go after the terrorists. What we do have an obligation to do is self-preservation=making sure it doesn't happen again.

We can change our country (sorry for the non-Americans out there), but we don't have some kind of "mystical George Bush international savetheworld" powers.

In the example of Iraq, we should have given the citizens support and allowed them to go after Saddam on their own. ONLY after they consented should we have entered.

I don't mean to say that we should have gone in after the UN said it was okay, because the UN is NOT Iraq. Thus, they also don't have "mysterical Kofi Anna internation savetheworld" powers. They think they do, but they only have jurisdiction over themselves.

Back to my point. We should develop counterintelligences to protect ourselves, for as soon as we take vengeance into our own hands we are in the wrong.

Soldiers are not bad, however, for going to Iraq and killing, etc. It is not wrong to do one's own job.

It may be ethically weak to do something like killing, but ethics are in the eye of the beholder. Because we ourselves aren't that individual solder, we have no right to say they are wrong.

We can speculate, but we oughtn't deceive ourselves. People think for themselves, and no truth is absolute.

So, to blindly take up an ignoble cause is noble? No, that's called stupidity. It's like calling someone who jumps off a cliff noble and berating people who didn't as ignoble. :rolleyes:
There is nothing noble about being a loser who sits on his computer and bashes soldiers because he was to cowardly to sign up to serve, and even if he did, would fail the physical for lacking a spine. STFU.

The fighting man is an extension of forigen policy, fact of the matter being that its their job, to defeat the enemy, besides the enemy could just as easily surrender and there would be no need to kill. Besides if you take the example of Iraq the insurgents for the most part want to die by killing Americans so they can go to paridise. The fact also being that most modern armies dont target non combatants, they are collateral damage, if you fire x bullets and drop x bombs some WILL miss, its a fact.

On Sheep, Sheepdogs, and Wolves
>snip<
So where exactly do nimble old Goats with big razor-sharp horns like me fit in to your little tale? We'd rather graze peacefully alongside the sheep but can handle the wolves as well as the sheepdog.

I apologize for quoting myself: "In the US, soldiers are commanded by civilians. The will of the people guide the sword."

The (US) people need to use better judgement, IMHO. And I don't mean Bush. He's only a link in a long chain of bad guys to hold office. JFK was the last guy to get elected on his charisma, and he's as close as we can come to a "good guy" in the last 50 years. Everybody since has been elected through assassinations, mud slinging, big money, and ballot rigging (I live in Chicago, land of creative politics. Hats off to you guys in Florida.)

Corruption sucks.

What if? It hasn't. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. These things don't pop out of nowhere. If there weren't soldiers, there wouldn't be wars hence, no invasions etc. However, there are, and there are wars. Far too many of them. You forget that a soldier is there for the primary purpose of killing and maiming, to "eliminate insurgents" or whatever. Soldiers aren't there to protect people for the most part - who's invading my homeland soil in your hypothetical situation? That's right, soldiers.

Soldier. Job? To kill people on command.

Simple.

This statement is completely WRONG!! Here is what a soldier's job is:

The Military Oath
The following oath is taken by all personnel inducted into the armed forces of the United States, as found in the US Code, Section 502.

I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

This can be found just about anywhere on the internet.

I'd also like to say that I think being an American soldier is a noble calling. I've been a soldier for the past 6 years and I plan on serving for as long as I am able to. I've been in Iraq for 1 year, and before I get accused of being a baby-killer, or an invader, a killing of inocent people, or any other piece of vile crap, let me tell everyone on this thread something.
The news only reports the most interesting (ie: violent or deadly) news from Iraq. They do it to get good ratings. You rarely hear about what's going on in the areas of Iraq where no bombings or shootings are going on. In these places, the locals welcome US troops and they see us as liberators. I know, I was there. I was personally thanked many times by Iraqis for geting rid of Saddam and for traveling far from my home to help people I didn't know. These are the people risking their lives to help rebuild their damaged country; they are out in the streets every day patolling along side US and Coalition forces with mch less equipment then us but with the same dedication.
I'll leave with this thought: The people who pray most for peace are the soldiers, as they are the ones who lay their life on the line when peace is not achieved.

Kill YOU dead makes a good point.

US media is driven by profit. they only show us what sells, and right now that's sex and violence. The free press is now a for-profit press. Nut-jobs, murders and car acidents, meaningless filler, that's what we're fed. The "free" press should be reporting every aspect of the US occupation of Iraq. Aside from the tsunami tragedy, there is no more significant event in the world (although events in Ukraine command attention.)

In an ideal world, there would be no need for soldiers, so even if we may occasionally need them in our non-ideal world, there's no reason to glorify them.

Thats an ideal world isn't it? However the world isn't ideal.

Grow up. Either you kill or be killed. Whether it's noble or not, they are needed. It's noble to fight for your country and protect your love ones.

Unless your talking about Iraq war, which is a big doodoo of intelligence. Even then, it's noble of the soldiers to stick it in and stay with the people to help rebuild their nations instead of getting overruned by insurgents.

Additionally, KYD's comments on the heroism of Iraqi soldiers and police are valid. These guys believe in freedom and democracy. They are heroes, regardless of what you think of the US.

Bad news sells I guess. We always hear about the deaths, families crying and stuff. But never the good news.

Obviously , the above poster, has never been in the military, known anyone in the military, or has an IQ above that of a chimpanzee.

Do you have to steal or know thieves to understand that theft is wrong? Do you have to kill or know killers to know that murder is wrong?

Is it necessary to launch straight into a personal attack on someone that you (presumably) do not know in order to prove your point?



One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me.....

Good, lets start with a nice unbiased source as to the value of soldiers.

the people in our society are sheep. ...
they need warriors to protect them from the predators.
"Then there are the wolves," ... "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."...

The problem, of course is that there are no good shepherds.

And too many wolves in sheeps clothing.

And too many boys who have called "wolf".

And, of course both the wolf and the sheepdog have the same common ancestor.

Know that I've had my little fun with your analogy, lets get serious.

There have been societies that have had a high regard for their warriors.

Perhaps the most recent example was Japan during WW11. The "Way of the Warrior" led to the death marches, the appalling mistreatment of civilians and prisoners of war, and the kamikaze.

Is this the path that you suggest?

Another difference between Commie Pink and me is that he thinks that war exists because there are soldiers. Of course, that's wrong. Soldiers exist because there is war. They are an effect not a cause.[QUOTE]

But without people willing to fight war, there would be no war - could you clarify on that?

[QUOTE=Salchicho]There is nothing noble about being a loser who sits on his computer and bashes soldiers because he was to cowardly to sign up to serve, and even if he did, would fail the physical for lacking a spine. STFU.

Case well argued, you obviously know me and my kind, the spineless pacifistic lot. I'm not cowardly because I don't want to run around pretending to be hard and killing people on command; I want to do something worthwhile.

On the WWII front, you miss my point people - Germany would have not been in a position to invade were it not for the wars that ravaged europe and the world during its colonial and imperialist period. Hence, it would be a moot point, because there wouldn't have *been* a war.

And in no way do I justify 9/11 - I don't believe killing is right, I don't care what citizenship people have in that respect; "blood has no nationality". I just believe also that people who mourn the loss of the dead of 9/11 should at least aknowledge the dead in Iraq. "Collateral damage" maybe, accidental...maybe... But they're still dead.

My basic point is - killing people is...uhm..well. Bad?

We live in an imperfect world that needs people to to defend others. Being a soldier is a noble thing on either side. You are willing to die for what you believe in. You sit there and talk about how soldiers don't deserve to exist but the only reason you are there is because they do. Soldiers aren't the ones who are deciding to start wars, they are the ones who fight. They have to go into a kill or be killed situation and sometimes the only way to save yourself or your buddy is to kill the person shooting at you.

Soldiers dont decide what wars we get into, politicians do... Politicans are evil.

Case well argued, you obviously know me and my kind, the spineless pacifistic lot. I'm not cowardly because I don't want to run around pretending to be hard and killing people on command; I want to do something worthwhile.

Being a soldier is not about killing people on command. Being a soldier is about serving and protecting your country. Being a soldier in the United States means being part of a history that created this democracy, that ended slavery in the US, that ended WWII, that oppressed and killed Indians, that committed abuses and ran rampant. Being a Soldier is a noble cause, and something that no one should have to do.

On the WWII front, you miss my point people - Germany would have not been in a position to invade were it not for the wars that ravaged europe and the world during its colonial and imperialist period. Hence, it would be a moot point, because there wouldn't have *been* a war.

... Riight. Germany would not of been in a postion to fight a war of revenge, and thats what WWII was btw, if it had not been oppressed horriblely after WWI, Which would not have happened if not for the system of alliacnes which would not have happened if *goes back in history a few thousand years* Julius Caesar had not chased his fellow senators across Europe, if Scipio had not burned Carthage to teh ground, if Hannibal had not invaded and made Rome suffer, if Rome had not fought the Punic wars, if Carthage had not, balah blah blah.

The history of the world serves to show you why we need soldiers, because people are not peaceful.

My basic point is - killing people is...uhm..well. Bad?

Too bad we're not all like you.

"There's got to be a better way than fighting." said Mr. Saveloy

"Yep. Lots of 'em. Only none of 'em work" said Cohen
- Interesting Times

Case well argued, you obviously know me and my kind, the spineless pacifistic lot. I'm not cowardly because I don't want to run around pretending to be hard and killing people on command; I want to do something worthwhile.

My basic point is - killing people is...uhm..well. Bad?


I'm offended by the first quote, as it implies that all soldiers do is kill people and don't do anything worthwhile. Here's why: I was in northern Iraq for a year and in that time my 4 man team helped rebuild the area. We got the funding and the local contractors to reconstruct well over 40 schools, 3 health clinics, we worked with Iraqi Civil Defense Corps troops, et with ministers regarding local problems and how the US might help overcome the. Other soldiers throughout Iraq have been doing similar things to help Iraq recover from the years of abuse and terror experienced during Saddam's regime. I found working with the Iraqi people and seeing their delight at what we were doing to help them to be very worthwhile. It was, and still is, very satisfying to me when I was thanked for being there by people from all walks of life.
I do agree with your second quote; killing people is bad, but sometimes it is a necessity to protect those that are not able to protect themselves.

Liberated Citizens thanks for the support, its nice to be reminded that people are out there who support and appreciate the job US soldiers do.

i'm sure this is bound to make me intensely popular but here's how i feel: if you want to be a soldier and you choose to lay your life on the line for an idea(l) or a patch of land or a barrel of oil that's your business. i respect that just as much as i respect someone who chooses to be a butcher, a baker or a candlestick maker. but just because you choose to accept this role does not mean i have to choose to celebrate your work.

for those who have joined a service to be trained in the art of war then why the hew and cry when injuries or casualties are suffered? is that not the point of the whole exercise? to kill?

you will of course mention all the good things like building bridges and schools and the like but could those things not be done by civilians without guns and tanks? seems to work just fine here at home...

it's just something that i'll never quite understand.

maybe that's not nescessarry because my personal feelings will never bring down the hallowed institution of war

I don't know if the US invasion was right or wrong. I'm personally opposed to it but now that we're there we have to make good on our promises. The reasons and justifications for invading espoused by our leaders are invalid.

If we believed that oppressive and dangerous regimes that defy the UN should be overthrown, we'd be at war with at least 30 countries, including Isreal. We sure as hell wouldn't be doing $200 billion/year trade with China.

Should oppressive regimes be allowed to exist. Of course not, they're terrible places. Should other nations do business with oppressive regimes. Of course not, but we do, all of us.

Every country has blood on its hands. Everybody expects a tyrannical regime to spill blood, often the blood of his countrymen. But when a democracy spills blood, we're no longer talking about a madman with an army. We're talking about militaries commanded by civilians voted into office. When a democracy spills blood, it is the will of the people.

Soldiers fight for a cause. Leaders, mostly politicians, determine the nature of the cause, good or bad. A soldier can only be as noble as the cause he fights for.

Soldiers dont decide what wars we get into, politicians do... Politicans are evil.

And the leaders that send the troops stay well out of it themselves.

The last front line commander who was also the head of state that I am aware of was Napoleon, and before that Richard 111 - and you've got to go back a long time for either.

Soldiers get sent to their deaths for the so-called glory of their leaders - so it was with Alexander the Great, Caesar, Napoleon etc - their names are known, but the dead they left are forgotten, and over time, their deaths, bravery or cowardice and their cause becomes meaningless.

What matter the "glory" of a Caesar or a Napoleon today?

And that is all it takes to make the "sacrafice" and the "glory" totally meaningless - time.

Those who fought in the dreadful butchery of WW1 were told they were in "the war to end war" - how relevant is their sacrafice and glory today?

All that remains is the real loss of life.

One day it will all be forgotten. One day there will be no America. It is inevitable that no one will last forever. Like the warriors of the old times, everything they fought for has now been forgotten.

War is a quick fix, a way to resist ideological changes in a society, to defend their current state of freedom or whatever it may be. One day that will mean absolutely nothing.

If everyone knew that, and I mean everyone, maybe they would give up on war before they even started.

There's nothing glorius about it, but there is definately nobility in doing what you believe is right and good... and being willing to both kill and die for it.

There's nothing glorius about it, but there is definately nobility in doing what you believe is right and good... and being willing to both kill and die for it.

Hitler acted in accordance with what he believed to be "right and good", and he was willing to both kill and die for it. Does this make him noble? I suppose he can join a long list of "nobles" from Atilla the Hun to Vlad the Impaler to Pol Pot.

Being "noble" has nothing to do with killing or dying IMHO.

The "noblest" I would consider are those who dedicate their lives to helping others - for example, the members of medecins sans frontiers (Doctors without Borders) - medical staff prepared to go when and where needed, at considerable personal risk, and without the big salaries that they could command.

See more at http://www.msf.org/

No bleating from the military that they rebuild schools, hospitals etc takes away from their main purpose.

Compare Doctors without Frontiers with the "Way of the Warrior" from Japan in WWII - and then decide what is noble, and what is base.

Hmm, I seem to remember something about:

The next time you vote - don't thank a politician, thank a soldier.

The next time you protest - don't thank a journalist, thank a soldier.

The next time you pray - don't thank a priest, thank a soldier.

&ct.

Soldiers gave their lives to secure our way of life. That is more than antone else around here.

We interrupt this debate to say "Happy New Year"

I have a feeling that the noblest thing our armed forces do this year will be to help the disaster victims in Asia. Being able to deploy security, medical, and logistic support are the abilities the military excels at.

Some of you may say dieing for your country is the noblest, but getting blown up because no one could be bothered to secure hudreds of metric tons of nuclear weapons grade explosives is just ironic and stupid. Note to Rumsfeld; a few killograms of the missing cache were receantly found in a mess tent in Mosul.

This may be long, but its worth a read.

Obviously , the above poster, has never been in the military, known anyone in the military, or has an IQ above that of a chimpanzee.


On Sheep, Sheepdogs, and Wolves

By Dave Grossman

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." ....
blah blah blah
...The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically, at your moment of truth.
I think this post surely deserves to be nominated for the 'Most patronising reply ever' award.

Soldiers gave their lives to secure our way of life. That is more than antone else around here.
well, obviously. Cause if anyone in this forum had given their lives, they wouldn't be posting now, would they?

We interrupt this debate to say "Happy New Year"
And a "Happy New Year" back!

I was a soldier in the US Army for 4 years. I strongly recomend against serving in the US military. I understand the desire to "do your patriotic duty", but don't do it. It's a scam. Don't sign up, or they'll own you for 8 years to life. For instance, if you do something stupid and hurt yourself, you can be charged with damaging government property. Let no one own you. If you really want to defend the country, buy a rifle, learn how to shoot it, perhaps contact the civilian marksmanship program (http://www.odcmp.com/), and go join a civilian border milita and/or wait for China to invade. If you want to get paid to patrol the border, join the border patrol.

If more young people would do this instead of joining the military, the government would be unable to launch unessesary offensive wars without a draft. And if they were sufficiently armed and trained, a draft might not be feasible.

There really is nothing good about being a soldier. The romantic lives of sheep, dogs and wolfs forgets to mention the dogs of war send to other countries to pound wolves there. Nevermind that the wolves there 'protect' the sheep instead and instead of having sheep on your back and wolves ahead of you, you suddenly have no one to back you and all the wolves, sheep and dogs ahead of you. Which do you kill? Obviously, the wolves deserve to die as they use sheep as cattle and pick them off without opposition. Despite their allegiance, the dogs there (opposition) need to die because they are dangerous and COULD be rabid or be hostile for other reasons. And both canine factions draw upon the sheep for support or just for meat. So the less sheep they have, the sooner they can be wiped out. This is how the US army operates, with the sheep being targeted as debatable. But one thing is clear: the US wants Iraqs dogs out of the way, they want militias who had nothing to do with Saddam disbanded. Al-Sadr's militia is the only example that bit back. However, in the turmoil the sheep lost all their protection from the remaining (outlaw) dogs and have to trust in unfamiliar dogs, which they don't. Cases like Guantanamo Bay or Abu Graib and several examples of US ignorance or bloodthirst confirm to the Iraqis that the US has wolves in their armies as well. I agree with them when they say they'd rather see the US leave. I agree with Vietnamese who said the US support a terror regime. I agree with Germans who say that despite their own cruelties during the war, the Allies should have known better than to bombard cities. I think it should be clear by now: these sheepdogs may look friendly but don't live with the stupid illusion they'll never get rabbies or can't be wolves who blend in. War is a dirty game and the only war worth fighting is a defensive war.

Also, despite what the cute story said, being a pacifist does not make one a sheep. It is because a pacifist sees danger that he opposes it. He cannot deny the existance of danger without denying the existance of his own ideal. A pacifist is not fond of any kind of voilence and goes a long way to prevent it. His major weakness is that (introducing another animal here) warhawks will almost always take advantage of the pacifist's patience and non-lethal aproach to further their own selfish and bloodthirsty agendas. Hitler did that, Bin Laden did it, Bush does it, despite huge oposition to voilence. The warhawks tell their sheep the soldiers are dogs who will protect them, but they will unleash their dogs as wolves on opposing warhawks, dogs, wolves and even sheep alike when they see a picking.

That doesn't make the pacifist a defenseless sheep however. Pacifist can have ways wreck an opponent, especially when they have support of the dogs. In a country like the US, the dogs see no reason to listen to the sheep and the warhawks have firm control over the wolf-dogs which they'll never give up. The presidents is supreme commander and stands on top of the foodchain, so the sheep-dog-wolf theory is a tad too simple. The people themselves have no say over what happens to the dogs, they can only watch as the once gently creatures are used as marauders by a force over which they no longer have control. Such is the tragic tale of the war on terror.

well, obviously. Cause if anyone in this forum had given their lives, they wouldn't be posting now, would they?
that reminds me of a quote froma stupid actress

"Smoking kills. If you die, you've lost a very important part of your life." - Brooke Sheilds

As a cadet who plans to join the Army I want to give my two cents:

The fact is that in a school the only thing a bully will respond ot is strength. Its the same in world affairs, we tried reasoning with Hitler, Stalin, we condemmed Mugabe and countless other dictators, does it make any difference? The only thing a dictator responds to is force. To make the world a safer place you need soldiers to guard the 'sheep'

And to the people who say that war isn't glorious I dissagree. In 1940 Britain had four combat divisions left, no equipment and the german Uboats had strangled our supplies. The Germans outnumbered us 3 to one in the air, had 200 divisions on land and had just chucked us out of France with ease. Now Hitler didn't want war with Britain (read Mein Kampf) he wanted peace, we gave back the German lands we'd taken at the end of WW1 and we would have peace, Britain would have kept its Empire and Hitler would have sent his armies against Stalin and, with his airforce intact would have taken russia, Fascism would have ruled the world and the Jews would have been wiped out at Belsen and Treblinka.

Instead of keeping our empire, instead of remaining as a world power we fought, we fought and won. If you think those men who died at Alamein, Arnheim and Caen died for nothing then your an idiot who knows nothing about the holacaust.

War can be glorious it can show Humans at their best when it comes to self sacrifice and reallising that evil must be fought. War is a tool for both good and evil

I think what you have to do is differentiate between the person and the institution. I'm sure alot of Nazi death camp guards were very nice people, if the institution didn't force them into an unfortunate position.

The soldier giving his life for his friend is a noble act among ignoble and tragic carnage. Why were they there? Why are they taking part in the killing?

Oh and I guess all the dead Iraqi civilians are thanking their benevolent liberators for the privelege?

And notice how it said, it isn't "noble". In an imperfect world, it could be said that being a soldier is nescessary, but not "noble". In what way did the article imply soldiers are scum?

nobility is placing the needs of strangers before your own because you feel it is the right thing to do.

Something that is the basic part of someone who places their life on the line to save others.... be it ER doc, soldier or policeman

As a cadet who plans to join the Army I want to give my two cents:

The fact is that in a school the only thing a bully will respond ot is strength. Its the same in world affairs, we tried reasoning with Hitler, Stalin, we condemmed Mugabe and countless other dictators, does it make any difference? The only thing a dictator responds to is force. To make the world a safer place you need soldiers to guard the 'sheep'

And to the people who say that war isn't glorious I dissagree. In 1940 Britain had four combat divisions left, no equipment and the german Uboats had strangled our supplies. The Germans outnumbered us 3 to one in the air, had 200 divisions on land and had just chucked us out of France with ease. Now Hitler didn't want war with Britain (read Mein Kampf) he wanted peace, we gave back the German lands we'd taken at the end of WW1 and we would have peace, Britain would have kept its Empire and Hitler would have sent his armies against Stalin and, with his airforce intact would have taken russia, Fascism would have ruled the world and the Jews would have been wiped out at Belsen and Treblinka.

Instead of keeping our empire, instead of remaining as a world power we fought, we fought and won. If you think those men who died at Alamein, Arnheim and Caen died for nothing then your an idiot who knows nothing about the holacaust.

War can be glorious it can show Humans at their best when it comes to self sacrifice and reallising that evil must be fought. War is a tool for both good and evil
Well said! I salute you! :)

What about the soldiers who risk their lives to save others. When they go into battle-they know they can die. When you risk your life for someone else-that my friend is noble.

Here are some soldiers-

http://www.army.mil/yearinphotos/

I guess the one thats teaching the little girl how to brush her teeth is especially a scumbag huh?

War is a horrible ugly thing, but it exists. I wish it didnt but it does. :(
Nobody is calling soldiers scumbags. In fact, nobody is even saying that soldiers can't do noble things. The case, I think, is that simply being a soldier is not noble on its own.

So, to blindly take up an ignoble cause is noble? No, that's called stupidity. It's like calling someone who jumps off a cliff noble and berating people who didn't as ignoble.
Who ever said anything about being blind?

Your saying that someone who has sworn to risk his life to protect you and your lifestyle from all threats, internal and external is not worthy of a tiny bit of respect?

Thats not just ungrateful its disgusting these men are prepared to die for you and your trying to demean what they do

It all depends on the individual solder.

The American prison guards who tortured?

Not noble, though I'm sure they were following orders that came all the way from the White House. A solder has a duty to refuse an illegal order.

The Commander In Chief hanging solders out to dry for following his orders, not noble. There's been memos found! :D

Your saying that someone who has sworn to risk his life to protect you and your lifestyle from all threats, internal and external is not worthy of a tiny bit of respect?

Thats not just ungrateful its disgusting these men are prepared to die for you and your trying to demean what they do
they seem a bit more ready to kill to "protect" our lifestyle than die for it

Another difference between Commie Pink and me is that he thinks that war exists because there are soldiers. Of course, that's wrong. Soldiers exist because there is war. They are an effect not a cause.

And the cause of war is the search for power. Power to say what is to be done, who is to say it and who is to do it. Power to force people to agree with you. Even the current USA war of terror is a war for power.


What came first? The chicken or the egg?

What came first? The chicken or the egg?

well according the anthropology, archeology, and history, war came first. Men have been waging war pretty much since the end of the Ice Age (12,000 years ago). The fossil record has found human remains with arrow heads in them, as well as blunt trauma and bone cuts indicating death by weapons.

So war came first, fought by hunter gatherers, and then we learned how to plant crops and harvest them, allowing for specialization of tasks, and one of the first specialist was the full time guard or soldier who had the job of protecting those crops from neighbors and wanderers who thought all that wheat lying around looked pretty easy to pick up.

thats were soldiers come from.

well according the anthropology, archeology, and history, war came first. Men have been waging war pretty much since the end of the Ice Age (12,000 years ago). The fossil record has found human remains with arrow heads in them, as well as blunt trauma and bone cuts indicating death by weapons.

So war came first, fought by hunter gatherers, and then we learned how to plant crops and harvest them, allowing for specialization of tasks, and one of the first specialist was the full time guard or soldier who had the job of protecting those crops from neighbors and wanderers who thought all that wheat lying around looked pretty easy to pick up.

thats were soldiers come from.

Admittedly, our history is pretty poor.

We also used to have "god-kings" and slavery.

Non-violent civil disobedience like Ghandi's was unthinkable. "People power" changes in the Phillipines, Berlin Wall, and now the Ukraine were unimaginable.

History proves that we can overcome our past and create a better future.

To believe otherwise is to condemn yourself to repeating past mistakes.

What came first? The chicken or the egg?
The egg. At least, for the modern incarnation of today's chicken.

they seem a bit more ready to kill to "protect" our lifestyle than die for it

*blinks* Ok, let disarm the military, and then, when they all die, who then protects you?

If someone gave you the choice between living and dying which would you pick?

Please note; I did not ask you to choose between living and killing. I would not expect you to ever say you would kill for any reason.

Besides in a text medium it is all too easy to say I would rather die than kill and make a show of being morally superiour.

It might be good for trolling, but the statement that “there’s nothing notable about being a soldier” is the kind of statement that comes from the sanitary surroundings of an office water cooler.

First of all let’s separate the soldiers from the rest of the Army. Soldiers are the Infantry. They aren’t the guys who pack rations, pump gas, and drive trucks. Those are necessary jobs, but they aren’t soldiers. They’re just people who like to wear green or are semi-retired soldiers.

The most remarkable thing about soldiering in the Combat Arms is having your ego naked to everyone around you. Unlike civilian life where so many people go around pretending to be much better and cooler than they actually are: in the combat arms such attempts are quickly foiled. The stress you are under and close contact with everyone around you exposes your weaknesses for all to see. It’s more than some superficial people can possibly take. I actually miss that naked ego, where you get real appreciation for being real. If you’re a bad shot you can’t exactly go bragging around to your comrades about what a great shot you are and if you’re not very decisive this will be quickly revealed. I really find this sort of refreshing honesty missing in civilian life, where completely incompetent individuals are not only holed up on islands of insecurity, but also applauded by equally insecure individuals. Straight shooters in dealing with other people are very much lacking in civilian life. That’s not to say that there aren’t weasels and horrible people in the Military, only that the people around them are quickly made aware of it and it’s not the social grace like it is in civilian life.

The other thing that soldiers have that sets them apart from “civvies” is the way of the tribe. For the disassociated city dweller, they have little or no sense of community compared to the tribal way of life in the Rifle Company or Regiment. From what I’ve seen the closest you can get to this sense of tribal brotherhood is in the Fire Department, but it still isn’t the same at all.

The sense of challenge available is like nothing else in civilian life. For some they take the road of as little challenge as possible hoping only to survive the training, but others thrive from the challenges. Being fit is just part of it. It’s having one hour of sleep for three days out in the rain soaked mud, and still being focused, while driving your body to new limits and passed them. And staying in good morale and not bitching about everything when you do it. Those are the times that really tell you a lot about a person’s character and about your own. It’s easy to be a great guy when everything is going great, but see how you are when the stress starts eating at you and things are quickly spiraling out of control. Then we’ll see the real you.

Let’s face it; a lot of people are anti-Military because they are against the current administration in the US. What these people need to remember is that in the US, the Military doesn’t create foreign policy (or at least not since that idiot General Macarthur was around). So please continue to hate the monstrously uninformed and uncaring Politicians who continue to send soldiers to bad places, but don’t hold the soldiers responsible for foreign policy. It’s like blaming elementary students for the State education budget.

The Bruce

Let’s face it; a lot of people are anti-Military because they are against the current administration in the US. What these people need to remember is that in the US, the Military doesn’t create foreign policy (or at least not since that idiot General Macarthur was around). So please continue to hate the monstrously uninformed and uncaring Politicians who continue to send soldiers to bad places, but don’t hold the soldiers responsible for foreign policy. It’s like blaming elementary students for the State education budget.

The Bruce

while I can see your parallel, it doesn't hold for me. I'm a Canadian so my position is not based on the American administration. Regardless of who is sending soldiers to 'bad places' is this not to be expected? if someone is to join the military without looking into what kind of 'bad places' he or she may end up and bad things they may be called upon to do are then not just as much to blame? :confused: ignorance, in this day and age, is no longer a viable excuse.

Admittedly, our history is pretty poor.

We also used to have "god-kings" and slavery.

Non-violent civil disobedience like Ghandi's was unthinkable. "People power" changes in the Phillipines, Berlin Wall, and now the Ukraine were unimaginable.

History proves that we can overcome our past and create a better future.

To believe otherwise is to condemn yourself to repeating past mistakes.

we still have God Kings in the world.... look at Kim in North Korea, a god king in everything but name. "People Power" changed things in the US as well, thanks to the great man, Martin Luther King.

For now though, we still need soldiers.

Your saying that someone who has sworn to risk his life to protect you and your lifestyle from all threats, internal and external is not worthy of a tiny bit of respect?
I was a soldier in US Army and I never swore such a thing. I swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domenstic, and to obey the President. That is the standard oath.

I don’t think that any soldier has the right to protest being sent to bad places, because that is part of their mandate and utilization. Otherwise we’d be deploying the Boy Scouts. I also think that the responsibility of being sent and how they are prepared for their mission should be applied where it belongs: with the politicians.

While this is an obvious fact, it seems wasted on some people, who have taken upon themselves to dislike the military while embracing the culture of political correctness. It’s easy to point at one incident from the couch, when there are people all around the world putting themselves in harm’s way to protect civilians from very bad people.

The Bruce

I was a soldier in US Army and I never swore such a thing. I swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domenstic, and to obey the President. That is the standard oath.
Here's the full text of the Oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Your right. Most soldiers aren't Nobility.

I think what you mean is that its not all white knights and heros. However, being a soldier is being noble. Think about it, giving your life for everyone back in your country to be safe.

Another thing to point out, is that in sense, you're saying everyone in the World Wars weren't noble. Thats an insult to the soldiers, the veterns, the dead and your country.

If it weren't for war and soldiers, you'd be under the rule of Nazi Germany, no matter what country you're in. And for those Americans that say, they'd never take over America :

If Britain fell, then that left Germany open to attack America, with 9/10s of the World Population.

Now you don't even respect all the Allied Soldiers that died doing their job.

You know, you're rather shallow and ungrateful