NationStates Jolt Archive

From here (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9048915&postcount=6):
I know what you mean. People on here discover I was US military and automatically assume that I'm cold, mean, and cruel ... and a friggin' neo-con, for crying out loud. Sigh. :(The "neo-conservative" assumption does sound unreasonable. I also admit that it's unreasonable to equate military life with civilian life, so it's unreasonable to assume that you're cold, mean, and cruel in civilian life.

Still, a soldier has to be ready to kill someone (an enemy) at a moments notice because someone else (a superior) says so. Don't you have to be cold, mean, and cruel, at least a little bit, to do that sort of thing?

I guess what I'm really asking is: What does it take, psychologically, to do the job of a soldier? I don't believe that it's something I could be capable of, but then again, it's not something I really understand.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

From here (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9048915&postcount=6):
The "neo-conservative" assumption does sound unreasonable. I also admit that it's unreasonable to equate military life with civilian life, so it's unreasonable to assume that you're cold, mean, and cruel in civilian life.

Still, a soldier has to be ready to kill someone (an enemy) at a moments notice because someone else (a superior) says so. Don't you have to be cold, mean, and cruel, at least a little bit, to do that sort of thing?

I guess what I'm really asking is: What does it take, psychologically, to do the job of a soldier? I don't believe that it's something I could be capable of, but then again, it's not something I really understand.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

I believe it takes a bit of "re-programming". Just ask G. Gordon Liddy! :p

I hope I'm not trespassing the thread by posting, but...

I wouldn't know anything about officers, but ordinary infantry, the guys I have known doing that basically had the qualities of thugs - a light-hearted, casual approach towards violence and property. One was openly racist, another enjoyed acts of vandalism such as urinating in post boxes, routinely acting in a threatening manner to take-away employees, etc.

The 'thinking' military types I have known, never made their career in it. For example a housemate from last year who chose post-graduate study instead of continuing pilot training with the RAF.

These are just my observations, of course. I should say I rarely stereotype people, only scum like chavs, furries, etc. ;)

I hope I'm not trespassing the thread by posting, but...Well, anybody with something on-topic and civil to post is welcome. I directed this thread to Eutruscas attention since I'm quoting a post of his from another thread, but anyone with military experience might be able to answer my question.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

hmmmm, well just cause you have to kill somebody does not mean your cold my lord, weve been doin this for as long as weve been around, when somebody is out to kill you its just human nature to want to kill the the little puke. and Mercy sakes alive just cause your wearin a uniform doesnt mean your neoconsertive whose only goal in life is to make ole George W and his buddies even richer. Alot of people go into the military simply cause they cant afford to go to college on thier own or they like to fire automatic weapons.

Alot of people go into the military simply cause they cant afford to go to college on thier own or they like to fire automatic weapons.

I heard this argument so many times. I have to say, I can understand it from the subjective view of the person concerned, it's a nice income, you do have some opportunities you might not have anywhere else.
But still... you are being trained to kill people, and not only people who are really out to kill you. You are paid to follow orders without questioning.

Many of the soldiers I talked to so far had no real concept of that, I don't know if they didn't want to hear it or just really didn't care. It's not as if the military ever included this message in it's slogans to catch new people (Join the army, see the world, meet new people - and kill them)
And most of the killing has become distant. Many soldiers don't get into direct hand-to-hand combat, they would kill from the safty of tanks, planes, or even more remotely firing missiles that are radio-controled. They don't see the people they kill, which I guess will make it a lot easier, too.

As it is, somebody obviously has to do the job, but how people can be proud about it is beyond me. It's a sorry sign for the way humanity resolves conflicts.

Still, a soldier has to be ready to kill someone (an enemy) at a moments notice because someone else (a superior) says so. Don't you have to be cold, mean, and cruel, at least a little bit, to do that sort of thing?

I guess what I'm really asking is: What does it take, psychologically, to do the job of a soldier? I don't believe that it's something I could be capable of, but then again, it's not something I really understand.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

Well, I am retired from the Air Force where I worked in aircraft maintenance, so I have never had to face the enemy on the battlefield, but I do want to respond.

Every soldier, sailor, marine, and airman comes from the general population. They are no different from anyone in "civilian life." People in the military are trained to defend themselves and their brothers in arms, just as a policeman is trained to protect themselves and the general population.

I guess what I'm saying is people in the military are not psychologically any different from people in civilian life.

You are paid to follow orders without questioning. That's not exactly true. It is my understanding that soldiers can actually refuse an order if it goes against the Rules of Engagement or the Geneva Convention. In most Western countries that is.

They don't see the people they kill, which I guess will make it a lot easier, too. Whilst this may hold true for people stationed in the navy and airforce, the infantry still makes up a large percentage of the U.S. fighting force. Combat is still pretty close in those situations.

Alot of people go into the military simply cause they cant afford to go to college on thier own or they like to fire automatic weapons.

Some people go into the military because they want to get a college education, some people go into the military because they want to learn a trade, some people go into the military because they are patriotic. There are many reasons people go into the military.

Another thing you have to remember is a lot of those who are in the military, perhaps the vast majority are not in combat arms fields. Not many in the Air Force get to fire a weapon outside of basic training or annual qualification.

Whilst this may hold true for people stationed in the navy and airforce, the infantry still makes up a large percentage of the U.S. fighting force. Combat is still pretty close in those situations.

So, what does that say about the personality of infantry soldiers? I know I couldn't kill another person for the life of me, and I'm having a really hard time trying to imagine what goes on in the heads of people who do.

That's not exactly true. It is my understanding that soldiers can actually refuse an order if it goes against the Rules of Engagement or the Geneva Convention. In most Western countries that is.

You are quite right. A military member does not have to folllow an illegal order, in fact they could end up being prosicuted if they do.

You are quite right. A military member does not have to folllow an illegal order, in fact they could end up being prosicuted if they do.

Most of the soldiers I met so far were rather... shall we say, simple. I doubt that they would know the exact terms of the Geneva convention and as a result couldn't tell legal orders from illegal ones...

So, what does that say about the personality of infantry soldiers? I know I couldn't kill another person for the life of me, and I'm having a really hard time trying to imagine what goes on in the heads of people who do.

I'll bet if you had a weapon you were trained to use and someone was trying to kill you, you would use that weapon to kill them.

I'll bet if you had a weapon you were trained to use and someone was trying to kill you, you would use that weapon to kill them.

No. Sorry to disappoint you there, but I wouldn't.
I figure I wouldn't be a big loss to humanity either ;)

I know I couldn't kill another person for the life of me, and I'm having a really hard time trying to imagine what goes on in the heads of people who do. Any number of things really. I personally hope that most of the people who join the Armed Forces do it out of a love for their country or a sense of obligation, rather than being driven by the desire to murder other human beings, but there is no real assurance that sometimes that isn't the case.

People may also join in order to recieve the benifits, (paid education, skill training, it looks impressive on a resume), or in some cases, simply join because they are dirt poor and have little else available to them.

Most of the soldiers I met so far were rather... shall we say, simple. I doubt that they would know the exact terms of the Geneva convention and as a result couldn't tell legal orders from illegal ones...

I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of people in the military. Obviously, you don't know many and those you do know you don't know well.

All military personnel receive training in the Geneva Convention so they will know what is legal and what is illegal conduct. They get that training in basic training and refresher training annually.

This comes down to the problem with stereotypes: There are exceptions.

No. Sorry to disappoint you there, but I wouldn't.
I figure I wouldn't be a big loss to humanity either ;)

You don't have a very high opinon of yorself. Or was that sarcasm?

I'm reminded of the song "Alice's Restaurant"
Son, why do you want to join the army?
Well sir, I want to kill things. I want to see blood and gore and I want to kill, kill.
And I was jumping up and down on the desk saying Kill! Kill!
and he said, son, you're our kinda man.....
I reallize the quote may not be exact, but it still makes me laugh. :p

You are quite right. A military member does not have to folllow an illegal order, in fact they could end up being prosicuted if they do.I know that in israel there are 3 sorts of commands: legal, illegal and totally illegal. soldiers may tell their commanders commander's about every command which is not legal, but they have to obey to any command which is not totally illegal.
I think there isn't any information about what exactly is totally ilegal command, so there is litlle problem. as I know it mainly killing or beating civilians for porpuses of revenge or deterrence.

edit- I figured that I forget to write about the issue of the military streotipe. I don't sure, but I assume that those characters developed while the military service, although most of the soldiers know how to seperate between the military and the civil life.

I was in the U.S. Military. It matured me a lot. :)

You don't have a very high opinon of yorself. Or was that sarcasm?

No, that was honest. I'd rather be killed myself than having other people killed in my name. But that's just me and my opinion, I wouldn't dream of forcing that on anybody else.


I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of people in the military. Obviously, you don't know many and those you do know you don't know well.

All military personnel receive training in the Geneva Convention so they will know what is legal and what is illegal conduct. They get that training in basic training and refresher training annually.

That's why I said, those I met so far. I'm not generalising that in any way, please don't misunderstand that.
I grew up in a small town in Southern Germany that has a large US army base. In the 70s when I was a kid, there were at times almost more US soldiers than inhabitants. You just couldn't avoid meeting some of them, and I'm sorry to say that but some of them clearly ranked among the most stupid and uninformed people I've met in my life.
One of them once told me that the Germans built Neuschwanstein (he didn't know the name, I just guessed from "you know, that castle thing with the whit towers and all") cause they were jealous of Disneyland, another one tried to convince me that Einstein was the guy who discovered evolution and invented gravity (again, his words, not mine ;) )
I find it hard to imagine these people having a grasp on international law, but then again, I may well be wrong.

Well, I am retired from the Air Force where I worked in aircraft maintenance, so I have never had to face the enemy on the battlefield, but I do want to respond.

Every soldier, sailor, marine, and airman comes from the general population. They are no different from anyone in "civilian life." People in the military are trained to defend themselves and their brothers in arms, just as a policeman is trained to protect themselves and the general population.
So... What part of China are you from?

I don't think anyone has brought this up (I don't have time to read the entire thread :( )

I would kill to protect the people I care about and to protect the nation. I know many of you don't believe that what our military is doing right now is protecting anybody but some people (myself included) do, so you shouldn't discount the motive just because you don't agree with it. Each to his own. The long and the short of it is this... I would kill to protect my girlfriend, my other friends, my family, my countrymen and/or the countrymen of non-hostile nations. I would put myself in the position to be killed for that which is mentioned above. Sometimes action is neccessary and non-action can be lethal. People in the military obey their superiors because not every private can be given the whole picture. It's not because they are cold hearted, not because they are blind and brainwashed but because they are inperfect human being trying to do their best to make a difference. In the same manner that some police are cold hearted bastards, some soldiers will be too, but not all.

I hate to say it but this is and allways has been a kill or be killed world. I know it sucks but our military is made up of the same type of people who went over to help stop Hitler and help keep you from having to memorize Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrur in school.

I hate to say it but this is and allways has been a kill or be killed world. I know it sucks but our military is made up of the same type of people who went over to help stop Hitler and help keep you from having to memorize Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrur in school.

As this discussion is about military in general, not only the US military, I kind of feel obliged to draw your attention to the fact that it might have been soldiers as well that may have ended up forcing you to " memorize Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer in school" ;)

So... What part of China are you from?

:confused:

So, what does that say about the personality of infantry soldiers? I know I couldn't kill another person for the life of me, and I'm having a really hard time trying to imagine what goes on in the heads of people who do.

One of the things about the Military, and they've been trying to figure it out for freaking ever, is how someone who seems to have the 'right' mindset will be cowering in the track peeing his pants, while that nebbish who doesn't seem to 'get it' is the guy grabbing the '60 and clearing a path for his buddies to get back.

NOBODY can predict what they are going to do in a stressful situation like combat.

Did you know that after Gettysburgh, they found rifle-muskets with up to twenty balls stuffed down the bore? The dead guys carrying them couldn't bring themselves to fire 'em, even in the face of someone desperately trying to kill them-so they went on reflex and kept stuffing the muzzle.

Most of the Career NCO's I encountered (including those animals in the 13 series) aren't "Thuggish" at all. The VETS this is especially true of-you learn to really appreciate life when you've seen it ended in a bloody and horrible way.
Most of your 'Thugs' are greenies-that is, they've never heard a shot fired in anger. Soldiers do what they do in hopes of not having to do it for real, and in combat, in hopes of doing it well enough not only to keep themselves and their buddies alive, but ending the fight as quickly as possible, because if the combat is ended quickly and decisively, peace can maybe, finally, arrive, and they can go home.

No, that was honest. I'd rather be killed myself than having other people killed in my name. But that's just me and my opinion, I wouldn't dream of forcing that on anybody else.



That's why I said, those I met so far. I'm not generalising that in any way, please don't misunderstand that.
I grew up in a small town in Southern Germany that has a large US army base. In the 70s when I was a kid, there were at times almost more US soldiers than inhabitants. You just couldn't avoid meeting some of them, and I'm sorry to say that but some of them clearly ranked among the most stupid and uninformed people I've met in my life.
One of them once told me that the Germans built Neuschwanstein (he didn't know the name, I just guessed from "you know, that castle thing with the whit towers and all") cause they were jealous of Disneyland, another one tried to convince me that Einstein was the guy who discovered evolution and invented gravity (again, his words, not mine ;) )
I find it hard to imagine these people having a grasp on international law, but then again, I may well be wrong.

In the '70s, the U.S. Army was in sorry shape-Officers were reluctant to enter the Enlisted Barracks without armed escort, and drug problems were rampant, along with low morale and a rotted readiness. One of the main reasons Reagan is so popular with so many Vets is that he cleaned up the Services and did something about the discipline problems. I'm not surprised you encountered scumbags during that time period, because of those problems.
By the late '80s/early '90s, most of the criminals, thugs, and crooks were, in one way or another, weeded out.

Don't assume the assholes that almost lost the cold-war (would have, if the Russians had a realistic idea of how deep the rot had spread under Carter) are the same people wearing the green-suit today.

The assumption that members of the military are neo-cons simply because they <i>are</i> members of the military is preposterous. The military (in a western democracy) is an apolitical orginazation. It's officers are prohibited from active campaigning as well as discussing their political views. The oath that soldiers take (in the US) is to the office of Commander-in-chief, not his party or political views, and to uphold the Constitution.

Whats wrong with being proud of ones service to the country, and the people, they love?

In the '70s, the U.S. Army was in sorry shape-Officers were reluctant to enter the Enlisted Barracks without armed escort, and drug problems were rampant, along with low morale and a rotted readiness. One of the main reasons Reagan is so popular with so many Vets is that he cleaned up the Services and did something about the discipline problems. I'm not surprised you encountered scumbags during that time period, because of those problems.
By the late '80s/early '90s, most of the criminals, thugs, and crooks were, in one way or another, weeded out.

Don't assume the assholes that almost lost the cold-war (would have, if the Russians had a realistic idea of how deep the rot had spread under Carter) are the same people wearing the green-suit today.

Where did you come up with this?

<snip>

Actually, the Neuschwanstein bit took place in 1986 and the Einstein bit in 1992. Before that, I was too young to speak English, and I didn't want to go to details describing the kind of behaviour I saw as a kid.
Same is true for German soldiers, although there's a differnet system in place there, military service is semi-compulsory.
My father is working for a big international company manufacturing automobile parts. As his company got a contract for manufacturing parts of tanks, he once got a guided tour on a military base, presenting the tanks in question. He noticed that controls showed pictograms rather than words and enquired about that. The officer replied that most of the soldiers driving these tanks didn't have enough reading skills and could identify pictograms easier and faster, so for the sake of quick reaction they had designed the controls that way.
That really scared me - people who have difficulties reading driving tanks and handling heavy artillery?

The oath that soldiers take (in the US) is to the office of Commander-in-chief, not his party or political views, and to uphold the Constitution.

The oath that I have proudly taken many times is as follows:

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.

Well, I'd consider myself a very staunch believer in "Turn the other cheek", so I highly doubt that I could force myself to harm others, even if I were pulled into combat. It's both moral and spiritual reasons that make me a pacifist.

That's not to say that I wouldn't attempt to contribute to our armed forces should I be put into them. I would just ask to be kept out of the front lines or away from any weaponry.

The officer replied that most of the soldiers driving these tanks didn't have enough reading skills and could identify pictograms easier and faster, so for the sake of quick reaction they had designed the controls that way.

Pictograms were used "for the sake of quick reaction they had designed the controls that way." All enlisted personnel in the 1980's had to have a high school diploma. No one is going to take the time to read a manual while driving a tank, etc.

Actually, the Neuschwanstein bit took place in 1986 and the Einstein bit in 1992. Before that, I was too young to speak English, and I didn't want to go to details describing the kind of behaviour I saw as a kid.
Same is true for German soldiers, although there's a differnet system in place there, military service is semi-compulsory.
My father is working for a big international company manufacturing automobile parts. As his company got a contract for manufacturing parts of tanks, he once got a guided tour on a military base, presenting the tanks in question. He noticed that controls showed pictograms rather than words and enquired about that. The officer replied that most of the soldiers driving these tanks didn't have enough reading skills and could identify pictograms easier and faster, so for the sake of quick reaction they had designed the controls that way.
That really scared me - people who have difficulties reading driving tanks and handling heavy artillery?

People tend to have 'visual' rather than 'verbal' memories. it's easier to process an image for most men than words. In combat, you want your stuff 'idiot proof' because if it's idiot proof, it's soldier-proof. This doesn't mean your soldiers are idiots, however. I remember a certain BA holder (Bachelor's of Arts) in a unit I served in, who somehow repeatedly couldn't remember that the male plug goes into the female socket, he blew out two launcher-test rigs by jamming male cannon-plugs together. Remember, this guy was educated and had a very high I.Q.

Also: Officers who do PR (that's "Public Relations"-guiding tours and stuff) aren't immune to assuming that because a soldier doesn't have brass on his collar, he's an idiot. An enlisted man would tell you that the pictograms are there so that when the Leutenant wants to try driving, he doesn't fuck the machinery up. (i.e. Junior officers are often viewed as having little to no intelligence, including the ability to think and read...by enlisted people).

The real reason the pictures are there, is so that the Civilian Contractors can test-drive the vehicles. Said contractors being present merely because their company has a lobbyist who got a juicy M&U contract that keeps the soldiers from getting skilled maintaining and upgrading their own gear. The "Poor Reading Skills" story is a myth, in other words. Soldiers are something like number-two market for pen-and-paper Roleplaying games (written to a higher level of reading than your standard FM/TM put out by the Services), books-without-pictures, and they have a strong presence on the Internet. Most of them have better grammar than their civilian counterparts.

Under stress, it's all muscle-memory, though. Neither pictograms, no written words are useful to a Tank-Driver beyond what he's learned to read on the guages, if he doesn't know what lever to pull, or how to handle the throttle/clutch/brakes, neither pictures, nor words are all that useful. Driving is an "Alpha State" task. you have to control it like you control your body.

The assumption that members of the military are neo-cons simply because they are members of the military is preposterous. The military (in a western democracy) is an apolitical orginazation. It's officers are prohibited from active campaigning as well as discussing their political views. The oath that soldiers take (in the US) is to the office of Commander-in-chief, not his party or political views, and to uphold the Constitution.so I get another prove that israel is not western democracy. here the generals talked in the news more than politicians, become political identified second after their service end (in the good case) and sometimes even decide about the policy.

Whats wrong with being proud of ones service to the country, and the people, they love?the problem is not with the soldeirs, is with the wars they has to fight. it more easier to be for the american army in WW2, than in the war in iraq.
btw, I don't think think anyone should be proud that he killed people. made it because you have to is one thing. be proud of it (as some soldiers made line on their gun for every killed), seem to me as bad idea. there is sill humans in the other side, even if they had other beliefs or ideology, and even if their ideology is monsterous as the nazis or the terrorists.

Pictograms were used "for the sake of quick reaction they had designed the controls that way." All enlisted personnel in the 1980's had to have a high school diploma. No one is going to take the time to read a manual while driving a tank, etc.

Thank you for clairifying that.

Pictograms were used "for the sake of quick reaction they had designed the controls that way." All enlisted personnel in the 1980's had to have a high school diploma. No one is going to take the time to read a manual while driving a tank, etc.


Please read my post, that was in the German military. Germany doesn't have High Schools, I don't know if the military requires any kind of diploma there.

Btw, why is everybody assuming that this is exclusively about US military? If I remember corretly, the question was what kind of person a soldier would have to be, any soldier, not necessarily a US one.

so I get another prove that israel is not western democracy. here the generals talked in the news more than politicians, become political identified second after their service end (in the good case) and sometimes even decide about the policy.

the problem is not with the soldeirs, is with the wars they has to fight. it more easier to be for the american army in WW2, than in the war in iraq.
btw, I don't think think anyone should be proud that he killed people. made it because you have to is one thing. be proud of it (as some soldiers made line on their gun for every killed), seem to me as bad idea. there is sill humans in the other side, even if they had other beliefs or ideology, and even if their ideology is monsterous as the nazis or the terrorists.

Soldiers generally aren't 'proud they killed people'. Most troops want to forget killing people. They're proud they did their bit to save their buddies, or to help end something or someone worse, but nobody (other than ticket-punching pricks like John Kerry) is ever 'proud' he killed someone. Killing is a necessary part of the job, but it's not something those who wear the uniform like to do. Though, to be fair, some folks need to be killed. Rapists, bastards that torture little kids, guys who rape widows then have them executed for prostitution... looters. People who target innocent civvies to try and coerce third-parties...well, I take it back, there are people one should be proud to kill-they blow up shopping malls and school buses, and talk their buddies into ramming airliners into office-buildings. it's Right to be proud of shooting a prick that abuses holy ground by using it as a hidey-hole after blowing away unarmed civilians.

the problem is not with the soldeirs, is with the wars they has to fight. it more easier to be for the american army in WW2, than in the war in iraq.
btw, I don't think think anyone should be proud that he killed people. made it because you have to is one thing. be proud of it (as some soldiers made line on their gun for every killed), seem to me as bad idea. there is sill humans in the other side, even if they had other beliefs or ideology, and even if their ideology is monsterous as the nazis or the terrorists.

History is written by the winners. After the end of the Iraq war (maybe three or four years after that), the winner will tell us who was the good part in this war and who was evil.

I completely agree about the rest... being proud of how many people you killed is barbaric at best. Even if you have to defend yourself, it is never something to be proud of.

Please read my post, that was in the German military. Germany doesn't have High Schools, I don't know if the military requires any kind of diploma there.

Btw, why is everybody assuming that this is exclusively about US military? If I remember corretly, the question was what kind of person a soldier would have to be, any soldier, not necessarily a US one.most of my points was about the israeli army, because that what I know. I used examples about the american army, because I want my point will be clear, and israeli examples just make the opossite.

so I get another prove that israel is not western democracy.

You said it, not me.....

Though, to be fair, some folks need to be killed. Rapists, bastards that torture little kids, guys who rape widows then have them executed for prostitution... looters. People who target innocent civvies to try and coerce third-parties...well, I take it back, there are people one should be proud to kill-they blow up shopping malls and school buses, and talk their buddies into ramming airliners into office-buildings. it's Right to be proud of shooting a prick that abuses holy ground by using it as a hidey-hole after blowing away unarmed civilians.


NO!
Listen here, my father molested and abused me when I was a kid. He is a bastard, but that will never justify killing him. Nobody is going to do that in my name. Ever.

Don't use victims of crimes and wars as a justification to kill more people. You are insulting their memory if you do.

If you need to kill people in order to protect others, that's sad enough as it is. But don't kill people on behalf of those already dead.

Btw, why is everybody assuming that this is exclusively about US military? If I remember corretly, the question was what kind of person a soldier would have to be, any soldier, not necessarily a US one.

Well, in my case I made the assumption you were refering to US because your question was directed to Eut who was in the American military. Sorry about that.

Soldiers generally aren't 'proud they killed people'. Most troops want to forget killing people. They're proud they did their bit to save their buddies, or to help end something or someone worse, but nobody (other than ticket-punching pricks like John Kerry) is ever 'proud' he killed someone. Killing is a necessary part of the job, but it's not something those who wear the uniform like to do. Though, to be fair, some folks need to be killed. Rapists, bastards that torture little kids, guys who rape widows then have them executed for prostitution... looters. People who target innocent civvies to try and coerce third-parties...well, I take it back, there are people one should be proud to kill-they blow up shopping malls and school buses, and talk their buddies into ramming airliners into office-buildings. it's Right to be proud of shooting a prick that abuses holy ground by using it as a hidey-hole after blowing away unarmed civilians.sure, some people should be killed. but if you killed them, there isn't reason to be proud. it justified and important act to kill those people, but I still uncomfortable while some soldiers are proud because they do it.
I thank the soldiers that defend me in their acts, but they shouldn't be proud.

History is written by the winners. After the end of the Iraq war (maybe three or four years after that), the winner will tell us who was the good part in this war and who was evil.
still ,as jewish, I can't see more justified war than ww2.

still ,as jewish, I can't see more justified war than ww2.

Given that the war itself was started by Germany, I wouldn't call it justified.
What was justified was the intervention of the allied forces. Justified, but unfortunately very late.

You said it, not me.....considering the fact that in most of the parameters we are far away from the modern western world, I think I will second that.

Given that the war itself was started by Germany, I wouldn't call it justified.
What was justified was the intervention of the allied forces. Justified, but unfortunately very late.
well, you get my idea. anyway, their timing was really bad if USA get in to the war at the first, it was ended by 1940. I can only imagine how many life were saved if it was, but badly the history cannot be changed.

well, you get my idea. anyway, their timing was really bad if USA get in to the war at the first, it was ended by 1940. I can only imagine how many life were saved if it was, but badly the history cannot be changed.

The US army would have been completely defeated by the Wehrmacht in 1940.

well, you get my idea. anyway, their timing was really bad if USA get in to the war at the first, it was ended by 1940. I can only imagine how many life were saved if it was, but badly the history cannot be changed.

And their timing would have been a lot better still if they hadn't supported Hitler right up to the invasion of Poland in 1938. But they were playing the same game they were playing with Iraq.
They turned a blind eye to Hitler's internal politics, as they wanted a strong "puppet" to be between them and communist Russia, same as they supported Iraq in the war against Iran (Iran being supported by Russia at that time).

If the US and Britain hadn't been as complacent... ah well, that's stuff for another thread.
Millions of lives could have been saved, on all sides.
You'd think they would learn, wouldn't you?

The US army would have been completely defeated by the Wehrmacht in 1940.

The US army alone might have been defeated in 1945 as well, without the Red Army in the east and the support of the British Army and the RAF...

The US army alone might have been defeated in 1945 as well, without the Red Army in the east and the support of the British Army and the RAF...

It took all the allies to defeat Germany, Japan, and Italy during WW II.

The US army alone might have been defeated in 1945 as well, without the Red Army in the east and the support of the British Army and the RAF...

That would probably have been the case.

The point is, WW II could have been avoided altogether. Hitler had been seriously breaching the Versaille treaty in rebuilding the German amry and taking the Ruhr region and the Saarland back, years before the war started.

The European nations (apart from France) and the USA turned a bline eye to those actions, on the contrary helped Hitler politically and financially, seeing in him a strong force against communism.
This is the case with most wars (not all, but most), they could have been avoided by diplomatic action in the first place.
Many governemts seem inclined to let the situation escalate before they react, however.

Well, anybody with something on-topic and civil to post is welcome. I directed this thread to Eutruscas attention since I'm quoting a post of his from another thread, but anyone with military experience might be able to answer my question.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

Some may be cold and cruel. Most, however, are not. I spent my own stint in the United States Navy (as a submariner).

It does take some "disconnection" to carry out orders. But inside, I think most, like myself, did have personal concerns we set aside to carry out actions. This does not mean we as people are cruel and cold, and heartless. Much like a judge, we have to set our personal passions aside, while in operation... Not to say we still do not possess those passions.

You are paid to follow orders without questioning.

Actually, while some may purport that. That is not true. We're paid to carry out our duties (which include following all lawfull orders). However, it is still up to the soldier to have to levy whether an order is "lawfull" or not, and there have been times I've questioned (and won in review) orders made by superiors which were in fact "unlawfull". My own Weps (WEapons Officer) on the USS Hampton, made sure I understood that I had to guage the orders of superiors; and raise objections where the orders seemed out of line.... And make alternative recommendations... "I wast just following orders" is no longer an excuse... The UCMJ only requires soldiers to follow LAWFUL orders from superiors....IF an order is unlawfull, it's your duty to disobey.

There are so many aspects to WWII that have to be observed to get a clear picture about it. America was deeply isolationist at the beginning of WWII. The American public did not know the things Hitler was planning and most stilled remember the quagmire of WWI. My own grandfather said that he didn't know the information about the genocide and concentration camps until about the end of the war. The consequent loans and reparations caused by war debt and reconstruction under the treaty of Versaille were partly responsible for the Great Depression or at least the public felt that way. Consequently, one the first measures of congress at the outbreak of WWII was to prohibit arms sales or loans to either of the combatant sides. The country did not want to go to war! British citizens felt partially the same way which is what lead to the appeasement of Hitler with his annexation of Austria.

Once America became involved it went into preparation. Beginning, I think, in about 1941 the country began refitting industry for war time products. The conservation and contributions of the American public were huge. WWII is probably the best example this century of the American people getting behind the government.

The point that is really meant is that America was not ready in 1940 to go to war thus the year build up.

Another point to consider and one that has been mention is the contribution of the Soveit Union to WWII. Russian casulaties alone probably equalled all of the allies if not more. One estimated I read said about 20 million but I'd say conservatively at least 10+. Frankly, it is my opinion that if Hitler had not broken his treaty with the USSR he probably would have won.

Slightly more on topic if one is confronted by an enemy who's intent is to kill you (or your race) pacifism isn't really an option. At that point, with and enemy in that mindset, you have to fight be it kill or disarm. Morally, I think if you don't want to kill someone but you have a sense self preservation you will. The alternative obviously (to me) is to attempt a non-lethal approach but that is really the only alternative when your enemy intends to kill you otherwise you're dead.

From here (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9048915&postcount=6):
The "neo-conservative" assumption does sound unreasonable. I also admit that it's unreasonable to equate military life with civilian life, so it's unreasonable to assume that you're cold, mean, and cruel in civilian life.

Still, a soldier has to be ready to kill someone (an enemy) at a moments notice because someone else (a superior) says so. Don't you have to be cold, mean, and cruel, at least a little bit, to do that sort of thing?

I guess what I'm really asking is: What does it take, psychologically, to do the job of a soldier? I don't believe that it's something I could be capable of, but then again, it's not something I really understand.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

Actually, for me, this was something I thought about a lot before entering the US Marines. I found that I often viewed my superiors as parents (I know my experiences are not everybody's) in that they usually cared very much about my welfare and most of what I was ordered to do was in my best interest.

I know there are people who are way up in the chain that have never heard my name and, quite simply, are willing to give my life and the lives of my friends for some unknown objective, but I didn't care about that. I wasn't fighting for peace, justice and the American way. That creates too much of a question about each individual task I'm put to (I was in for eight years). I was just trying to get a bunch of guys who I cared for very much and who were very much like me back to their friends and family in one piece. I always considered that my personal responsibility and I treated everything I did with the reverence the task deserved so that I might best serve my fellow soldier. I ran into men and women who were selfish, mean, thug-like and, basically, just not very nice people, but they were the exception. Most of the men and women were of a callibre I wish I could find in my civilian life. They were dedicated people who believed in what we were doing. And I could think of no better use of my time than to make sure those men and women made it back home.

One thing is certain, they could no more be painted with one brush than all of the people on NationStates. We came from different parts of the country, different cultures, sometimes even different countries. We covered all parts of the political spectrum. Some very much wished we were not involved in the things we were involved in, but they believed in the purpose (maybe the right ends, but the wrong means). Some were very glad we were doing what we were, but didn't really agree with the purpose (meaning, in the end good would come, but it didn't seem to be the original purpose).

I agree there is a degree of cruelty in being able to look another human in the face and pull the trigger or even in pressing a button that's going to make some person a mile away go pop, but I think most people tried not to focus on that. We tried to focus on protecting each other and protecting civilians, and left it to other people to try and avoid the conflict altogether. If you feel that's cold, well, then I guess there's nothing I'm going to say that'll make you see it differently.

There were very few who weren't united in the idea of protecting one another and the civilian population, however (which is something people seem to not want to believe about the US military). Our training was focused on being tactical (being effective against military targets while minimizing civilian casualties) and on being safe (minimizing friendly fire incidents).

The military is a tool. And like any tool it can and has been used for good and for ill. If you don't like where it goes or what it does, your problem is with senators and presidents, not soldiers (though like any other large organization there can and will be some who take advantage of their position, e.g. Abu Ghraib guards).

Actually, while some may purport that. That is not true. We're paid to carry out our duties (which include following all lawfull orders). However, it is still up to the soldier to have to levy whether an order is "lawfull" or not, and there have been times I've questioned (and won in review) orders made by superiors which were in fact "unlawfull". My own Weps (WEapons Officer) on the USS Hampton, made sure I understood that I had to guage the orders of superiors; and raise objections where the orders seemed out of line.... And make alternative recommendations... "I wast just following orders" is no longer an excuse... The UCMJ only requires soldiers to follow LAWFUL orders from superiors....IF an order is unlawfull, it's your duty to disobey.

Yes, exactly. I was rewarded once by officers when I disobeyed a senior SNCO who would have put my men in danger with his orders by placing them in front of very dangerous equipment. I took him to the side and questioned him and he chose to dismiss me. I then got together the other NCOs and we told him we were dismissing him from duty and we took over the operation. Later an officer arrived, assessed the situation and decided we had done the right thing. The SNCO was allowed to discontinue service rather than face charges.

I wasn't fighting for peace, justice and the American way. That creates too much of a question about each individual task I'm put to (I was in for eight years). I was just trying to get a bunch of guys who I cared for very much and who were very much like me back to their friends and family in one piece. I always considered that my personal responsibility and I treated everything I did with the reverence the task deserved so that I might best serve my fellow soldier

Thank you. That is one honest and open statement I had never hoped to hear.


The military is a tool. And like any tool it can and has been used for good and for ill. If you don't like where it goes or what it does, your problem is with senators and presidents, not soldiers (though like any other large organization there can and will be some who take advantage of their position, e.g. Abu Ghraib guards).

I agree. Completely.
Yet, soldiers are the elements of that tool, and you have to agree that he purpose of their job is rather extreme. So many people (myself included) often wonder what goes on in their heads, why they would be ready to kill others and be killed themselves....

So many people (myself included) often wonder what goes on in their heads, why they would be ready to kill others and be killed themselves....

I think many have said it quite nicely in this thread, but I'll put it like this. I think I didn't ever really focus on killing, and instead looked at protecting. Much like if a burglar came into your home and threatened your family (let's not get into politics and how this doesn't fit), you would be focused on protecting them, not ending someone else's life. I know in movies it's fun to make out like people can't wait to get out their and put some people in their graves, but most people just want to see their unit do their job and go back home to their families.

:confused:
It's a military stereotype.

Air Force = Asians.

Being retired Air Force, I'm surprised you didn't know that.

General Lee speaking to a man afraid to fight for fear of killing someone;

"This issue is in God's hands, we can only do our duty"

Brilliant quote. The fact is, it is your duty to fight for your country, and that just happens to include killing people that would do you and your countrymen harm. Don't worry about the other man you're shooting at, what happens to him is God's decission and all you can do is your job.

General Lee speaking to a man afraid to fight for fear of killing someone;

"This issue is in God's hands, we can only do our duty"

Brilliant quote. The fact is, it is your duty to fight for your country, and that just happens to include killing people that would do you and your countrymen harm. Don't worry about the other man you're shooting at, what happens to him is God's decission and all you can do is your job.

True, once you take that job, it's your duty to kill others if it comes to that situation.
Which is exactly why I could not take that job. Which in turn makes me wonder why others do.
Don't get me wrong, I know (that is, I hope) that only a minority joins the army because this may allow them to kill. Most would do so for other reasons, but they all accept that they may have to kill. That's the part I can't figure out.
Seeing that most people don't have a problem at killing others, as they would feel that they are defending themselves and others, they would still have to take into account the risk of being killed themselves. Now, that wouldn't make it much of a problem for me, but as I said above, you would kill to defend yourself, so you feel the need to protect your life. Yet you consciously put yourself in a position that might threaten your life?

Every soldier, sailor, marine, and airman comes from the general population. They are no different from anyone in "civilian life." People in the military are trained to defend themselves and their brothers in arms, just as a policeman is trained to protect themselves and the general population.They come from the general population, yes, but what does their military training do for them? ...or do to them?

Btw, why is everybody assuming that this is exclusively about US military? If I remember corretly, the question was what kind of person a soldier would have to be, any soldier, not necessarily a US one.Well, I am an American and I originally directed my question at another American, so there is an unspoken American bias in the discussion. However, the question could easily be extended to any country: What does it take for any person to kill any other person?

Well, in my case I made the assumption you were refering to US because your question was directed to Eut who was in the American military. Sorry about that.Just to clear up any confusion: "Cabra West" was not the one directing the question to Eutrusca, I was.

To everyone: I'll keep up with the topic, but I don't have anything to contribute, right now. You have given me things to think about and I thank you for that.

Also, this thread is more about soldiers doing their jobs than it is about WWII specifically. Discussions of WWII that don't immediately relate to the central focus of this topic should be taken to a separate topic. Thank you.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

...

So... What part of China are you from?It's a military stereotype.

Air Force = Asians.

Being retired Air Force, I'm surprised you didn't know that.You may want to be careful about your jokes. For a moment, I thought you were snidely calling him a totalitarian when he is not (or so I assume); this would constitute a personal attack against another NationStates player.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Bump.

I heard this argument so many times. I have to say, I can understand it from the subjective view of the person concerned, it's a nice income, you do have some opportunities you might not have anywhere else.
But still... you are being trained to kill people, and not only people who are really out to kill you. You are paid to follow orders without questioning.

Many of the soldiers I talked to so far had no real concept of that, I don't know if they didn't want to hear it or just really didn't care. It's not as if the military ever included this message in it's slogans to catch new people (Join the army, see the world, meet new people - and kill them)
And most of the killing has become distant. Many soldiers don't get into direct hand-to-hand combat, they would kill from the safty of tanks, planes, or even more remotely firing missiles that are radio-controled. They don't see the people they kill, which I guess will make it a lot easier, too.

As it is, somebody obviously has to do the job, but how people can be proud about it is beyond me. It's a sorry sign for the way humanity resolves conflicts.
Sigh. I was going to post directly to what Cog posted, but made the tactical error of starting to read the other posts first.

I don't know how many times I have to say this for it to sink in! Perhaps if I put it in bold and italic ...

In the US military, you are expected to obey all lawful orders. If an order is UNlawful, you can later be Court Martialed for obeying it, something a few of the soldiers at Abu Garib should have remembered!

From here (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9048915&postcount=6):
The "neo-conservative" assumption does sound unreasonable. I also admit that it's unreasonable to equate military life with civilian life, so it's unreasonable to assume that you're cold, mean, and cruel in civilian life.

Still, a soldier has to be ready to kill someone (an enemy) at a moments notice because someone else (a superior) says so. Don't you have to be cold, mean, and cruel, at least a little bit, to do that sort of thing?

I guess what I'm really asking is: What does it take, psychologically, to do the job of a soldier? I don't believe that it's something I could be capable of, but then again, it's not something I really understand.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
It's not a matter of being "cold, mean, and cruel." A professional soldier, meaning one who has been fully trained and accepts the position with full understanding of all its implications, goes through several stages of development. First is the intellectual realization that he might actually have to kill an opponent. Second is the realization that he will be placed in harm's way and may have little choice but to kill because that's his job. Third is when he first experiences incoming fire. Fourth is the response to return fire. Fifth is the realization that he may have killed his opponent when he returned fire, especially if the firing ceases. Sixth is when a member of his unit is wounded or killed by incoming fire. Seventh is when he meets an opponent face to face and realizes ( usually AFTER it's all over ) that only one of them is going to walk away.

Not everyone goes through all of these stages, but many Infantrymen do. I did.

Just so this doesn't get lost in the shuffle, and so Cog will know that at least I replied. :)

I've always seen the American army as a bunch of Cockey, Gun totting Yokels who just want to shoot something for fun. I was just thinking about that show Survivor. Imagine the ratings it would get if you put a bunch of the Australian SAS up against some of the American General Infantry. I can't help but laugh when I think about what would happen when the tribes had to merge. :D

I've always seen the American army as a bunch of Cockey, Gun totting Yokels who just want to shoot something for fun. I was just thinking about that show Survivor. Imagine the ratings it would get if you put a bunch of the Australian SAS up against some of the American General Infantry. I can't help but laugh when I think about what would happen when the tribes had to merge. :D

You're quite welcome to think that. I think it's interesting that you want to put up Elite, Special Forces against our lowest-common-denominator. Quite flattering, really-do you have so little confidence in the ability of Australian Army personnel that you feel that only the SAS can compare with us Yanks? I'm flattered. Really.

This above has not been my experience. We did some joint ops with standard-grade Aussies back in the Nineties, good, professional troops, if a bit daffy about taking too many risks, but good troops nonetheless.

You're quite welcome to think that. I think it's interesting that you want to put up Elite, Special Forces against our lowest-common-denominator. Quite flattering, really-do you have so little confidence in the ability of Australian Army personnel that you feel that only the SAS can compare with us Yanks? I'm flattered. Really.

This above has not been my experience. We did some joint ops with standard-grade Aussies back in the Nineties, good, professional troops, if a bit daffy about taking too many risks, but good troops nonetheless.

I put the SAS up against them not because they are the elite, but because of their attitude towards the military. They don't stand to attention and have orders barked at them by anyone, they relax a lot more and everybody is equal despite rank. Because of this the two sides would conflict which would make an interesting watch. Our GI's have the same attitude as yours but yours have a lot more to be arrogant about, having the mightiest military in the world and all that.

Sigh. I was going to post directly to what Cog posted, but made the tactical error of starting to read the other posts first.

I don't know how many times I have to say this for it to sink in! Perhaps if I put it in bold and italic ...

In the US military, you are expected to obey all lawful orders. If an order is UNlawful, you can later be Court Martialed for obeying it, something a few of the soldiers at Abu Garib should have remembered!

I regretted my choice of words a while ago, and I apologise again.

One question I find intrigueing though about this whole "I followed orders and they were lawful" thing is, what do you do if the laws change?
The example I have in mind are the soldiers on the former German/German border who shot countrymen trying to leave. In the time they did that, those were their orders and they were legal, although the execution of these orders sometimes was unnecessarily harsh. Yet, after the reunification, they were accused, judged and sentenced by the laws of Western Germany.
What's your opinion on that?

So many people (myself included) often wonder what goes on in their heads, why they would be ready to kill others and be killed themselves....

Because most of the airmen I served with (officers and enlisted) and I believed in what we were doing. We believed it was in the best interest of our country. We believed we were doing our part to protect the freedom and democracy of this county. We believed we were helping others achieve freedom oppression and establish a democratic government so they could enjoy the same freedoms we do.

Just so this doesn't get lost in the shuffle, and so Cog will know that at least I replied. :)
perhaps you should have telegramed him and let this thread die

perhaps you should have telegramed him and let this thread die
Why? Does the topic disturb you? :(

I regretted my choice of words a while ago, and I apologise again.

One question I find intrigueing though about this whole "I followed orders and they were lawful" thing is, what do you do if the laws change?
The example I have in mind are the soldiers on the former German/German border who shot countrymen trying to leave. In the time they did that, those were their orders and they were legal, although the execution of these orders sometimes was unnecessarily harsh. Yet, after the reunification, they were accused, judged and sentenced by the laws of Western Germany.
What's your opinion on that?

We have a constitution and in order for something like that to happen several hundred people would have to lose their minds all at the same time. Germany is a rare exception of a country that was divided and then brought back together. It happened once in our history as well, but we still handled war criminals differently. Also, for it to happen the country would have to divide first, which would be when we would need to start worrying about it.

My 2ps worth, i was an officer in the RAF for more years than i care to remember. Why did i do it...well being born into poverty in Sheffield is normally enough to make oyu want to do something with your life. Luckerly i had the brains to do somethin about it. Armed with a free degree (thanks to 1960's conservative policy) i was able to entre to air force and become well off and raise a family in a way hat i would never have been able to.

So to answer the question about people in the forces. Some are the biggest, racist bone heads in the world, some are highly skilled sociapaths capable of dropping a man and not caring 2 seconds later.

Generally i would say the stero-type are true of a certain type of person in the military.

However with reference to the American military and British as well, much of the military is recruted from the lower brances of society, where education in other cultures might not ohave been a high consideration. Therefore when you come into contact with these people they are not going to be bright. But lets remember one thing, if you didn't know they were military you would just think they were dumb. Putting on a uniform clumps you together with a couple of hundred thouand people.

Ah how easy it is to stero-type when the only thing you see is the uniform...

We have a constitution and in order for something like that to happen several hundred people would have to lose their minds all at the same time. Germany is a rare exception of a country that was divided and then brought back together. It happened once in our history as well, but we still handled war criminals differently. Also, for it to happen the country would have to divide first, which would be when we would need to start worrying about it.

Ok, lets turn that into an example for Americans, then ;)

Imagine America invaded another country, just for argument's sake let's say Iraq.
Iraqi soldiers defended their country, fighting the US forces. Let's assume (I don't know if this is true, I'm just constructing a scenario here) one Iraqi soldier is ordered to enlists underage chidren to fight for the Iraqi forces, and let's also say this would be legal under Iraqi law.
Let's further assume the US won this war and capture said Iraqi soldier. I'm pretty certain that neither US law nor international law would allow minors to be enlisted in any army. So, what do you do with this soldier?

Ok, lets turn that into an example for Americans, then ;)

Imagine America invaded another country, just for argument's sake let's say Iraq.
Iraqi soldiers defended their country, fighting the US forces. Let's assume (I don't know if this is true, I'm just constructing a scenario here) one Iraqi soldier is ordered to enlists underage chidren to fight for the Iraqi forces, and let's also say this would be legal under Iraqi law.
Let's further assume the US won this war and capture said Iraqi soldier. I'm pretty certain that neither US law nor international law would allow minors to be enlisted in any army. So, what do you do with this soldier?

The one that enlisted children? Nothing. It's not my job to deal with him. I'm not a US judge or an international judge. I would take him prisoner like any other prisoner. As far as the children he enlisted, I'm quite certain we've (the US) had to take children prisoner in the past and I actually have no idea how we handled it. I would suppose they would receive the support and care that every soldier is supposed to get according to the Geneva convention.

The one that enlisted children? Nothing. It's not my job to deal with him. I'm not a US judge or an international judge. I would take him prisoner like any other prisoner. As far as the children he enlisted, I'm quite certain we've (the US) had to take children prisoner in the past and I actually have no idea how we handled it. I would suppose they would receive the support and care that every soldier is supposed to get according to the Geneva convention.

Right, I rephrase that again : What should be done with him? He obeyed orders that were lawful. But the law changed. So, what happens to him?

Is he responsible for his actions? Would it be lawful if he claimed that he followed orders? And his superior, who gave these lawful orders? Can he be held responsible for the shildren soldiers that may have been killed?

Right, I rephrase that again : What should be done with him? He obeyed orders that were lawful. But the law changed. So, what happens to him?

Is he responsible for his actions? Would it be lawful if he claimed that he followed orders? And his superior, who gave these lawful orders? Can he be held responsible for the shildren soldiers that may have been killed?

I don't know how those situations are handled, but I think in most cases they are tried under international law, which is a fair bit better than what would likely happened if an American soldier was captured by an Iraqi. Much like the possibility of dying, the possibility of being captured by the enemy and submitted to their laws is a chance that you take, unless both sides are members of the Geneva Convention.

I don't know how those situations are handled, but I think in most cases they are tried under international law, which is a fair bit better than what would likely happened if an American soldier was captured by an Iraqi. Much like the possibility of dying, the possibility of being captured by the enemy and submitted to their laws is a chance that you take, unless both sides are members of the Geneva Convention.

Hmm... that made me think about the fit George W. Bush threw when it was suggested that American soldiers should be subject to international law and in case of war crimes be trialed by the International Court of Justice in The Hague.... I always wondered what he might have to hide?

Hmm... that made me think about the fit George W. Bush threw when it was suggested that American soldiers should be subject to international law and in case of war crimes be trialed by the International Court of Justice in The Hague.... I always wondered what he might have to hide?

There is no need. They are tried here. Like every country, however, there are many things that are considered to be priveleged information, we call them secret and top secret. In many cases, soldiers cannot adequately explain their defense without revealing information that could be damaging to the US military not because it's illegal but because it is necessary to the defense of the nation. It's the same reason why the media is not given access to some of these individuals.

Hmm... that made me think about the fit George W. Bush threw when it was suggested that American soldiers should be subject to international law and in case of war crimes be trialed by the International Court of Justice in The Hague.... I always wondered what he might have to hide?

Actually, I didn't think about it, but, most likely, many of those soldiers will be tried by the new Iraqi government, much like Sadaam.

Generally i would say the stero-type are true of a certain type of person in the military.

However with reference to the American military and British as well, much of the military is recruted from the lower brances of society, where education in other cultures might not ohave been a high consideration. Therefore when you come into contact with these people they are not going to be bright.

I'm so sorry you have such a low opinion of the British and American enlisted troops. I certainly am glad I never had to work with you. For someone who grew up in a poor family, you certainly come across with an elitist attitude.

Right, I rephrase that again : What should be done with him? He obeyed orders that were lawful. But the law changed. So, what happens to him?

Is he responsible for his actions? Would it be lawful if he claimed that he followed orders? And his superior, who gave these lawful orders? Can he be held responsible for the shildren soldiers that may have been killed?

Nothing would be done. Unless it was against the Geneva Convention then nothing would be done.

/me is solemn and contemplative.

It's not a matter of being "cold, mean, and cruel." A professional soldier, meaning one who has been fully trained and accepts the position with full understanding of all its implications, goes through.... <snip>Thanks, Eutrusca. This wasn't something I knew, before. I appreciate your reply.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

From here (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9048915&postcount=6):
The "neo-conservative" assumption does sound unreasonable. I also admit that it's unreasonable to equate military life with civilian life, so it's unreasonable to assume that you're cold, mean, and cruel in civilian life.

Still, a soldier has to be ready to kill someone (an enemy) at a moments notice because someone else (a superior) says so. Don't you have to be cold, mean, and cruel, at least a little bit, to do that sort of thing?

I guess what I'm really asking is: What does it take, psychologically, to do the job of a soldier? I don't believe that it's something I could be capable of, but then again, it's not something I really understand.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
I've said before that no one hates war more than a soldier. My experience over Libya and then in Kuwait proved to me that war is more destructive than I could ever have imagined.

It has to be seen to fully appreciate how awful it is. Good as TV is, it doesn't do the horror any justice.

Once experienced, it can never really be forgotten. I think if you ask any combat veteran, "Should we fight in XYZ?", he'll want to know that there is no other alternative. But I think we all know there are worse things than fighting.

Once there, a good man is going to do everything he can to keep alive and keep his pals alive. It's survival at that point, not strategic. That's for the big boys and it's nice to know they're on the ball and in your court [metaphor alert]. Just think about being in a fight that nearly always ends in someone's death. Or lots of someones. How else can you fight it?

To answer your question directly, it takes the ability to concentrate totally on the task at hand. In my case, that was finding the target on the radar or visually --- depending on the mission, making sure everything was ready for the bomb release, making sure the pilot did his job, and trying to stay vigilant for SAMS and AAA. After the bombs were on their way, I did everything I could to look for SAMs and AAA, while navigating back to the ship.

As an aviator, I could delay thinking about anything I'd done and I never had to see the results up close. As a forward air controller, I got that dubious privilege more than a couple times.

Ok, lets turn that into an example for Americans, then ;)

Imagine America invaded another country, just for argument's sake let's say Iraq.
Iraqi soldiers defended their country, fighting the US forces. Let's assume (I don't know if this is true, I'm just constructing a scenario here) one Iraqi soldier is ordered to enlists underage chidren to fight for the Iraqi forces, and let's also say this would be legal under Iraqi law.
Let's further assume the US won this war and capture said Iraqi soldier. I'm pretty certain that neither US law nor international law would allow minors to be enlisted in any army. So, what do you do with this soldier?

There is an example, (actually, several examples) of this happening in Military operations. during the fighting immediately following D-Day, a number of SS units made up of children (Hitler Youth).

Those taken prisoner were processed as standard EPW's (Enemy Prisoners of War), as were their officers-though the kiddies were handled with "Kid Gloves" (meaning a bit more gently than their officers...)

Under the standard ROE, your Iraqi gentleman would not be tried by the U.S., nor would he necessarily be bound over for international trial. He would be bound over for review and possible trial by the new Iraqi Government, as his 'victims' are Iraqis, (the children and their families) and the crime falls under civil, rather than Military, jurisdiction. as for International Law: there is no age-requirement under international law for Soldiers.

Unofficially, the americans that took him prisoner probably had to be sat upon by their officers to force them to accept his surrender. Most grunts in the U.S. look on what you've described as being only a couple steps above child-molestation, and there's a pretty wide streak of vigilantism in the portion of American Culture that is most attracted to Military service as Enlisted.

Ok, lets turn that into an example for Americans, then ;)

Imagine America invaded another country, just for argument's sake let's say Iraq.
Iraqi soldiers defended their country, fighting the US forces. Let's assume (I don't know if this is true, I'm just constructing a scenario here) one Iraqi soldier is ordered to enlists underage chidren to fight for the Iraqi forces, and let's also say this would be legal under Iraqi law.
Let's further assume the US won this war and capture said Iraqi soldier. I'm pretty certain that neither US law nor international law would allow minors to be enlisted in any army. So, what do you do with this soldier?
Send him back to school? Try and locate his parents? Spank him?

/me is solemn and contemplative.

Thanks, Eutrusca. This wasn't something I knew, before. I appreciate your reply.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
You're more than welcome. Just hope it didn't all get lost in the shuffle with all the posts this thread has attracted. :)

You're quite welcome to think that. I think it's interesting that you want to put up Elite, Special Forces against our lowest-common-denominator. Quite flattering, really-do you have so little confidence in the ability of Australian Army personnel that you feel that only the SAS can compare with us Yanks? I'm flattered. Really.

This above has not been my experience. We did some joint ops with standard-grade Aussies back in the Nineties, good, professional troops, if a bit daffy about taking too many risks, but good troops nonetheless.
I concur. I worked with a few of the Assuie soldiers in Vietnam and found them to be both hard-working and hard-playing. Only men I ever met at that age who could drink me under the table! :D

I regretted my choice of words a while ago, and I apologise again.

One question I find intrigueing though about this whole "I followed orders and they were lawful" thing is, what do you do if the laws change?
The example I have in mind are the soldiers on the former German/German border who shot countrymen trying to leave. In the time they did that, those were their orders and they were legal, although the execution of these orders sometimes was unnecessarily harsh. Yet, after the reunification, they were accused, judged and sentenced by the laws of Western Germany.
What's your opinion on that?
Some UN-lawful oders are more obviously unlawful than others. Shooting unarmed civilians is definitely unlawful, whether ordered or not. One of the best things the US military does is teach every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine about the Geneva Convention. I don't know if they still do this, but part of our Basic Training included a class in the Geneva Convention and a small, personal copy for every one of us.

One of the best things the US military does is teach every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine about the Geneva Convention. I don't know if they still do this, but part of our Basic Training included a class in the Geneva Convention and a small, personal copy for every one of us.


The same goes for the Danish military, where my father serves, my brother serves and I served. Myself only as a conscript, although my brother and father are career.

I have several friends who have been in Iraq and they have all been in shootings. They have also described the phases Eutrusca described. Not in those words, but that is the gist of it.

From here (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9048915&postcount=6):
The "neo-conservative" assumption does sound unreasonable. I also admit that it's unreasonable to equate military life with civilian life, so it's unreasonable to assume that you're cold, mean, and cruel in civilian life.

Still, a soldier has to be ready to kill someone (an enemy) at a moments notice because someone else (a superior) says so. Don't you have to be cold, mean, and cruel, at least a little bit, to do that sort of thing?

I guess what I'm really asking is: What does it take, psychologically, to do the job of a soldier? I don't believe that it's something I could be capable of, but then again, it's not something I really understand.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation


Unless you were in the infantry, it is unlikely that you have killed someone and actually been close enough to see them as humans.

If you're in armor, it's a tad more distant (usually). And artillerymen almost never see who they're shooting at - indirect fire at a target 18 km away is a bit impersonal.

Nearly everyone is capable of doing the job of the infantryman, despite personal feelings to the contrary. It is a very unusual person who can't do the job. The reason for this is small group dynamics.

Put people in a small group, and put them in a dangerous situation, and all they will care about is survival - on a personal level, and on a small group level. Humans innately see survival of the group as enhancing personal survival. So they fight to survive.

You won't go out of your way to kill, or to do anything horrible, but in a situation that demands survival, ordinary men do the things that others regard as heroic - doing things to ensure their own survival and the survival of others close to them.

Politics, at that point, rarely enters into the equation. Jingoism and other farcical thoughts do not exist in the mind in combat. It's all about the men around you, and all about making it home in one piece.

And, if you believe that you won't commit terrible, think again. It's the same small group dynamics that MAY make it possible for you to do something you can't imagine yourself doing. Regardless of your personal moral code, and regardless of the threat of punishment.

Point of fact, you will do anything to survive.

There's an excellent book on the subject by John Keegan called, "The Face of Battle". In comparing his conclusions to my own experiences, I find him to be right on the mark.

From here (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9048915&postcount=6):
The "neo-conservative" assumption does sound unreasonable. I also admit that it's unreasonable to equate military life with civilian life, so it's unreasonable to assume that you're cold, mean, and cruel in civilian life.

Still, a soldier has to be ready to kill someone (an enemy) at a moments notice because someone else (a superior) says so. Don't you have to be cold, mean, and cruel, at least a little bit, to do that sort of thing?

I guess what I'm really asking is: What does it take, psychologically, to do the job of a soldier? I don't believe that it's something I could be capable of, but then again, it's not something I really understand.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
GAAK. Go away for the weekend and miss out on the good threads... :(

OK, I have not yet read all 8 pages of this, but here's my take...

Having been in the Army and in direct 1 on 1 contact with the "enemy" (of the time, though not in combat) there is a very interesting dynamic that goes on between Professonal Soldiers. Over Drinks at the hotel where we were isolated because of our VIP detail(s), my Soviet counterparts & I came to the conclusion that (A) we are each pretty good Joes (Ivans?) and (B) we would still try to kill each other if the situation demanded it - but until then... WE DRINK!

There really isn't any specific animosity between professional soldiers. Hurting People and Breaking Things is what we are trained to do. I suppose that can be considered "cold", but it most certainly is not "mean" or "cruel". Mean and/or cruel is not our function. (Oh, and we are not specifically trying to kill the enemy because a superior orders us to "kill", we are ordered to "Occupy/Destroy X" or "Defend Y" - doing those tasks may involve (usually means) killing enemy combatants, but the Order & Objective is "Occupy/Destroy or Defend" not "Kill".)

There are some people who happen to be military personnel who belive the propaganda, or who are innately rat-bastards, but I question their level of professionalisim. Some take combat too personally - it can't be easy to see a buddy die - but to Hate the Professional Soldiers on the other side for doing their job, just as you are doing yours is irrational. Sometimes that irrationality takes over as survival instincts kick in, but in the ballance, IMO it is not the norm.

Of course, the above applies only to Professional Soldiers operating from a long-established Military Paradigm with origins in Greco-Roman Militaries and the incorporated philosophies of Sun-Su. These paradigms do not apply to Religious Fanatics with guns, "irregulars", "insurgants/terrorists" or tribal warriors, etc. The Professional Soldier's "code" (morals/ethics) places the Soldier at a psychological disadvantage against these "enemies" because the Soldier must recalibrate his combat sense to an enemy who IS cold, cruel, AND mean (and psychotic, has a death-wish, whose objective is not to "win" - and thereby stop hostilities - but to Kill & Die...)

Fighting an irregular force is bound to cause deep disturbance in the mind of a Professional Soldier. Soldiering is based upon Respect - respect for authority and respect for your opponent. Irregulars have no respect for you as an opponent and it becomes very easy to lose respect for them as Soldiers (because they aren't in the first place) and begin to think of them as simple things to be destroyed. (Sort of like the Kamakazi's of WWII - the "pilot" was a meaningless addition to a flying bomb. The bomb must be destroyed.) So when people strap bombs to their bodies.... and the bodies of women & children.... the moral Soldier must take decisions that are both moraly repugnant both in the abstract (killing Soldiers) and concrete (killing people that in a Soldier's view should be non-combatants...) That's a level of cognative dissonance that far more people have long-term difficulty (PSTD) with than when wars were about Soldier vs. Soldier.

But then, I'm an Idealist REMF and that is my "book psychology" opinion coupled with 4 days of drinking with Russian VIP detail troops (& 1 KGB handler...). The only Elephants I've seen have been small and in my back yard, not the Big Hairy ones "over there"...

Hurting People and Breaking Things

We were told at Infantry OSUT at Ft. Benning that "killing people and blowing things up" was our job.

We were told at Infantry OSUT at Ft. Benning that "killing people and blowing things up" was our job.
Yea, but I was Arty. My OSUT was Ft Sill back in 1985.

(Of course, with an 8" "special" there is a LOT of "collateral damage" when we "blow things up"...) :p

Edit: (Hey, if they REALLY wanted us to kill enemy Soldiers (rather than wound them for the 2 for 1 effect), they should have given us something besides a .22 to shoot them with.) :D

Yea, but I was Arty. My OSUT was Ft Sill back in 1985.

(Of course, with an 8" "special" there is a LOT of "collateral damage" when we "blow things up"...) :p

The problem with being Arty is that unless you're the FO, you usually don't get to see the results. It's fun to watch the shells go out, but it's even more fun to watch them land (as long as you're not danger close).

The problem with being Arty is that unless you're the FO, you usually don't get to see the results. It's fun to watch the shells go out, but it's even more fun to watch them land (as long as you're not danger close).

BTDT - if only at Grafenwoehr. Had an 8" land around a hundred meters down-slope of my OP at PA-N. That was interesting. I gave a hung of shell casing to the (outgoing) Capitan whose Battery shot "out".

BTDT - if only at Grafenwoehr. Had an 8" land around a hundred meters down-slope of my OP at PA-N. That was interesting. I gave a hung of shell casing to the (outgoing) Capitan whose Battery shot "out".

Bet you had fun trying to hear yourself think after that...

Why? Does the topic disturb you? :(
not disturbing just alittle baity, im sure Cog wouldnt allow it but we all know you can be touchy on a subject such as this.

Bet you had fun trying to hear yourself think after that...
Say what? (damn tinnitis...) :p

BTDT - if only at Grafenwoehr. Had an 8" land around a hundred meters down-slope of my OP at PA-N. That was interesting. I gave a hung of shell casing to the (outgoing) Capitan whose Battery shot "out".

When we did exercises, it was always HE or Smoke - but when we went to the Gulf, it seemed like everything they sent us was DPICM.

I was really afraid of DPICM. But we never called for anything close, so it was OK.

When we did exercises, it was always HE or Smoke - but when we went to the Gulf, it seemed like everything they sent us was DPICM.

I was really afraid of DPICM. But we never called for anything close, so it was OK.
Training areas really don't like VT fuses - even on HE. DPICM only aggravates the issue (unless you are using (mechanical)Time Fuses). I liked the bomblets though... unless I had to retrieve one from an idiot private using one as a paper weight :eek:

But I can understand the trepidation. A wrong setting on a time fuse on HE is noisy above you but not too dangerous. A base-discharge round pooping on you because of a bad setting ruins your day... (nothing more effective on troops & light armor in the open tho...)

Training areas really don't like VT fuses - even on HE. DPICM only aggravates the issue (unless you are using (mechanical)Time Fuses). I liked the bomblets though... unless I had to retrieve one from an idiot private using one as a paper weight :eek:

But I can understand the trepidation. A wrong setting on a time fuse on HE is noisy above you but not too dangerous. A base-discharge round pooping on you because of a bad setting ruins your day... (nothing more effective on troops & light armor in the open tho...)

My favorite was MLRS. I remember being a little over a km away from an Iraqi AAA gun setup (three open gun pits, three 40mm Bofors cannon, all laid horizontal to shoot at ground targets).

They were unaware of our presence, and they got hit with 12 rockets.

One second, there was one guy taking a crap in the open, a couple of guys standing there smoking, and some others sitting and eating, and a few leaning against the guns.

The next second, we could see the smoke trails coming over the horizon, and then a distincting "pop" sound of the warheads opening up overhead, and then

snap crackle pop - rice krispies....

Some bomblets even bounced down inside bunkers.

On the gunshields of the 40mm guns, there were centimeter-diameter holes all over the place. And of course, the gun crews had literally been blown to pieces.

The problem with being Arty is that unless you're the FO, you usually don't get to see the results. It's fun to watch the shells go out, but it's even more fun to watch them land (as long as you're not danger close).
When I was a FAC in Desert Storm, I called in more than a couple missions that were for targets around 1000 meters away. I was amazed at the size of the shrapnel that makes it that far. My radio operator retrieved a twenty or thirty pound chunk of really sharp metal that came off a Mk 84.

When I was a FAC in Desert Storm, I called in more than a couple missions that were for targets around 1000 meters away. I was amazed at the size of the shrapnel that makes it that far. My radio operator retrieved a twenty or thirty pound chunk of really sharp metal that came off a Mk 84.

That reminds me. I remember coming upon a water pumping station in Iraq that also had some civilian trailers and what looked like sheep watering troughs nearby, plus some burned out pickup trucks.

The pumping station was hit by something with drag ballutes (which were all that was left of the bombs), and the trailer area was hit by FAE.

People and sheep in the trailer area who had been standing next to a chain link fence had been blown through the fence, and then the fence was blown down. The grass was scorched away in a tremendous area, and the trailers looked like crushed soda cans - the outside walls were conformed over the trailer contents. And all that was left of the people were chunks outside the fence and the burned up soles of their shoes inside the fence.

Made me very, very fearful of aircraft.

That reminds me. I remember coming upon a water pumping station in Iraq that also had some civilian trailers and what looked like sheep watering troughs nearby, plus some burned out pickup trucks.

The pumping station was hit by something with drag ballutes (which were all that was left of the bombs), and the trailer area was hit by FAE.

People and sheep in the trailer area who had been standing next to a chain link fence had been blown through the fence, and then the fence was blown down. The grass was scorched away in a tremendous area, and the trailers looked like crushed soda cans - the outside walls were conformed over the trailer contents. And all that was left of the people were chunks outside the fence and the burned up soles of their shoes inside the fence.

Made me very, very fearful of aircraft.
I think FAE is even nastier than napalm. I never worked aircraft with either as a FAC, but I've dropped a few FAEs. It looks just like the pictures, first a big foggy cloud spreads out over the target and then Flash!, it's gone. Takes a couple seconds to broil everything. Only ordnance that was more fun than that was the forward firing kind.

You can feel bombs come off the racks in the seat of your pants. The ejector kicks the bomb off, and you can feel each thump. Forward-firing ordnance like Zunis or Harpoons make a great noise as they come off the rails. They make a nice exhaust trail that you can watch as they fly toward the target, too. Not good practice for a pilot to get fixated on that, but a lot of fun for the Bombardier.

<snip>Most of the Career NCO's I encountered (including those animals in the 13 series)<snip>

Hey, I resemble that remark.... pthblth :p

Syniks - 13B, 13F, 13M, 13S (was 82C) trained.

NO!
Listen here, my father molested and abused me when I was a kid. He is a bastard, but that will never justify killing him. Nobody is going to do that in my name. Ever.<snip>
It wouldn't be done in your name, but for society as a whole. Such an individual represents a serious threat and should be dealt with as such. However, as this is such a personal topic for you I will not comment further.

So, what does that say about the personality of infantry soldiers? I know I couldn't kill another person for the life of me, and I'm having a really hard time trying to imagine what goes on in the heads of people who do.
I saw a program about this. They spoke with various militaries but the US Marines were the most interesting.
In most wars the average grunt soldier did very little little killing (Something like 1 in 20 actually killed someone, but that is not an accurate figure, merely representative). One of the aims of modern training is to improve that. With that in mind, the Marines are trained to hit the target. They train them to see a target and shoot it. This is drilled over and over until they do it instinctively, see a target=shoot it. This enables them to shoot people.
As regards the question of coping with it afterwards, the figures were that for every 100 soldiers, 10 could kill without remorse. That is, 90 out of every 100 would feel remorse, guilt, disgust etc. up to post-traumatic stress. That is something they live with.
The other ten are split roughly 50-50, with 5 in every hundred having a 'hero' belief system that enabled them to kill without remorse and the other 5 being psychopathic and enjoying killing people.

Hey, I resemble that remark.... pthblth :p

Syniks - 13B, 13F, 13M, 13S (was 82C) trained.
Could be worse. You could have been a 15E, or a 21G...

In the '70s, the U.S. Army was in sorry shape-Officers were reluctant to enter the Enlisted Barracks without armed escort, and drug problems were rampant, along with low morale and a rotted readiness. One of the main reasons Reagan is so popular with so many Vets is that he cleaned up the Services and did something about the discipline problems. I'm not surprised you encountered scumbags during that time period, because of those problems. By the late '80s/early '90s, most of the criminals, thugs, and crooks were, in one way or another, weeded out.

Don't assume the assholes that almost lost the cold-war (would have, if the Russians had a realistic idea of how deep the rot had spread under Carter) are the same people wearing the green-suit today.

God. Tell me about it. When I got to Babenhausen in '88 nearly an entire Battery (company) had recently been drummed out - from the Senior NCO's down. They had every possible scam going and IIRC were even responsible for a couple of drug-related murders.

Glad I missed that crap.

I do not really care what people think of the military. The fact that they are willing to put their lives on the line (willingly or out of respect for their superiors) makes them heroes in my mind.

I listen to the gobbledygook on the media and it almost incites me enough to take up arms and join you.