NationStates Jolt Archive

After the 'Nastiest' thread lets look at some of the best traits of a trained soldier

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1247706,00.html

We can debate the rights and wrongs of them being there, but wow, these guys rock!

Bravest soldiers in history??

The Spartans, Thespians, and their allies at Thermopylae.

[/thread]

Bravest soldiers in human history

The 300.

Good traits in people trained to kill? Ok.... if you say so.

Good traits in people trained to kill? Ok.... if you say so.

Cause no soldier has ever been a good parent to their child... :rolleyes:

Cause no soldier has ever been a good parent to their child... :rolleyes:

Because that of course changes everything... I don't want to Godwin the thread, otherwise I could list you a number of devoted fathers an animal lovers.

Your blanket statement implied that there has never been a soldier with an admirable trait. It was a statement that is certainly based upon false and preconcieved notions regarding members of the military.

The statement also ignores the historical fact that, in the past, most soldiers had no choice as to whether or not to fight. Should we assume that all these men dragged from their homes and forced to fight or die were terrible people as well because they were trained to kill?

I wasn't trying to imply that these were the better soldiers than the Spartans, but hoping to back up what I think Delator means - there is a lot of negative press around the military at the moment, so it is refreshing to see good men doing good deeds for their comrades

BAttle of 42nd Street>This

Because that of course changes everything... I don't want to Godwin the thread, otherwise I could list you a number of devoted fathers an animal lovers.

Hah! Can I do it?

http://www.marlesreuth.de/buerg_hitler_adolf_blondi.jpg

Too late. :p


Okay, in seriousness:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson_and_his_donkey

The 300.Theban Sacred Band?

X Troop Ten Commando

It's been said multiple times, but the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae. Absolutely awe-inspiring.

'Their numbers block out the sun.'
'Then we shall fight in the shade.'

The 300 most definitely.

Good traits in people trained to kill? Ok.... if you say so.

Good lord...trying to imagine how many people you have insulted in only two sentences is daunting...as is the depth of your apparent ignorance...

Personally, my cousin is heading to Afghanistan in a year. He's an MP. I don't care what your views on the war are, disrespecting men who fight and die so you don't have to is perhaps the most worthless thing you can do as a person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

...certainly not just 300. ;)

Good lord...trying to imagine how many people you have insulted in only two sentences is daunting...as is the depth of your apparent ignorance...

Personally, my cousin is heading to Afghanistan in a year. He's an MP. I don't care what your views on the war are, disrespecting men who fight and die so you don't have to is perhaps the most worthless thing you can do as a person.

I never asked them to. And I never will ask them. I'd much rather die myself than have somebody else killed in my name.

"Hey! I fragged 10 baddies today, 2 with a headshot! I am so damn brave it hurts!'

What About the Legonaires at The Battle of Camarón

"Everywhere, unthinking mobs of "independent thinkers" wield tired clichés like cudgels, pummeling those who dare question “enlightened” dogma. If “violence never solved anything,” cops wouldn’t have guns and slaves may never have been freed. If it’s better that 10 guilty men go free to spare one innocent, why not free 100 or 1,000,000? Clichés begin arguments, they don’t settle them." - Jonah Goldberg

"Everywhere, unthinking mobs of "independent thinkers" wield tired clichés like cudgels, pummeling those who dare question “enlightened” dogma. If “violence never solved anything,” cops wouldn’t have guns and slaves may never have been freed. If it’s better that 10 guilty men go free to spare one innocent, why not free 100 or 1,000,000? Clichés begin arguments, they don’t settle them." - Jonah Goldberg

Cops here don't have guns.... but do go on, please.

I never asked them to. And I never will ask them. I'd much rather die myself than have somebody else killed in my name.

*applause*

Personally, my cousin is heading to Afghanistan in a year. He's an MP. I don't care what your views on the war are, disrespecting men who fight and die so you don't have to is perhaps the most worthless thing you can do as a person.

Not the most worthless. Organising the killing of thousands, and the propoganda campaign of millions, so they believe that killing Afghanis make Americans safer, now that's worthless.

Those men are not fighting and dying so others don't have to. The men in WW II did that.

I think the person you were responding to is a bit of a nob in suggesting every soldier is a bloodthirsty, heartless, killing machine. They are not. They are victims of the US foreign policy, just as much as the Afghanis and Iraqis.

I think the person you were responding to is a bit of a nob in suggesting every soldier is a bloodthirsty, heartless, killing machine. They are not. They are victims of the US foreign policy, just as much as the Afghanis and Iraqis.

I neither said nor suggested that.
The thread is about finding "the best soldier", not the best dad, or the best lover, or the person who gave the most money at the church bazaar. Soldiers are, per definition, trained to kill others - soldiers or civilians depends on who or what they fight for and who or what they fight under. I personally find it very hard to find good aspects about that.

People who want to serve their country become foster parents, teachers, or social workers.

People who want to kill, maim or otherwise harm others join the military.

The Thespians at Thermopylae. They were not even professional soldiers, but they believed it was absolutely horrible to allow the Spartans to be forced to stand alone, they stood with them.

After the 'Nastiest' thread lets look at some of the best traits of a trained soldier

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1247706,00.html

We can debate the rights and wrongs of them being there, but wow, these guys rock!

What a waste of tax payers' money. Sending a squad of marines in with a helicopter to recover a slab of dead human meat? What's the point of that?

What a waste of tax payers' money. Sending a squad of marines in with a helicopter to recover a slab of dead human meat? What's the point of that?

I'm sure those words will comfort the family of the dead man :(

I am not for the wars in any way at all, but the people who are put in these positions deserve a little respect if they die, and bringing back the body for a burial seems only right

I'm sure those words will comfort the family of the dead man :(

I am not for the wars in any way at all, but the people who are put in these positions deserve a little respect if they die, and bringing back the body for a burial seems only right

When a country values their soldiers more than they value their educators, there's a problem. (Especially considering that danger pay should be offered to some teachers. Seriously.)

These guys hardly qualify as the bravest soldiers in history.

If there were only thirty of them, and they didn't have any artillery, they might be nominated, but they wouldn't win.


If you want brave, why don't we talk to those soldiers in WWI who crouched in trenches for months while gunfire and gas rained down, and the fights were in several foot wide trenches, with soldiers brutally beating and stabbing each other with these things:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Model1917_knuckle_duster.jpg/658px-Model1917_knuckle_duster.jpg
It's a trench spike. You punched them with the metal part, or you drove the spike through their helmet into their brains.
It's a miracle any survivors were sane, in my opinion.

Look at these two previous posts from you.
Good traits in people trained to kill? Ok.... if you say so.
The sarcasm in this, suggest you think soldiers have NO good traits. They are just good trained killers.

Cause no soldier has ever been a good parent to their child...
Because that of course changes everything... I don't want to Godwin the thread, otherwise I could list you a number of devoted fathers an animal lovers.
I neither said nor suggested that.
The thread is about finding "the best soldier", not the best dad, or the best lover, or the person who gave the most money at the church bazaar. Soldiers are, per definition, trained to kill others - soldiers or civilians depends on who or what they fight for and who or what they fight under. I personally find it very hard to find good aspects about that.

I think I summed up your argument in a more brutally honest way than you would like, but I was correct. Change your tune now, if you like. You are nearly correct about the thread's title. It is about the bravest soldier. I also think that suggesting who is the bravest trained killer isn't that admirable. That doesn't turn the soldiers into Demons. They are people, generally from the poor sectors of society, doing a job. They are normal people with aspirations and dreams, who can be nice.On work hours, they kill people.

Look at these two previous posts from you.

The sarcasm in this, suggest you think soldiers have NO good traits. They are just good trained killers.

I never claimed that as persons they have no good traits. But in their role as soldiers I can't see any.
As I avoided to say, there were loving family fathers in the Red Army. There were artists in the ranks of the Khmer Rouge. There were animal lovers in the SS.
I do appreciate their love of family, artistic talent and love of animals, but those were not what defined them as soldiers. What defined them as soldiers were the weapons they carried, and what they did with them.


I think I summed up your argument in a more brutally honest way than you would like, but I was correct. Change your tune now, if you like. You are nearly correct about the thread's title. It is about the bravest soldier. I also think that suggesting who is the bravest trained killer isn't that admirable. That doesn't turn the soldiers into Demons. They are people, generally from the poor sectors of society, doing a job. They are normal people with aspirations and dreams, who can be nice.On work hours, they kill people.

I wasn't referring to the thread title, but to the first post of the OP :

After the 'Nastiest' thread lets look at some of the best traits of a trained soldier

He's looking for the best traits of trained soldiers. Not the best traits of family men.
I'm not turning soldiers into demons, I'm just pointing out that I find nothing admirable in the profession.

After the 'Nastiest' thread lets look at some of the best traits of a trained soldier

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1247706,00.html

We can debate the rights and wrongs of them being there, but wow, these guys rock!


There is a lot to be said for never leaving a man behind.

The average person will never comprehend riding on the OUTSIDE of an Apache, let alone the extremely hostile conditions as well.

These men are way up there among the bravest.

Gurkhas and Sikhs.

There is a lot to be said for never leaving a man behind.

The average person will never comprehend riding on the OUTSIDE of an Apache, let alone the extremely hostile conditions as well.

These men are way up there among the bravest.

It's been done more than once in Afghanistan by US forces. As well as being picked up by a smaller gunship, the Cobra.

Both helicopters have rings on the external hull to allow anyone with a carabiner to attach themselves to the outside and go for a ride.

US Special Forces ride on the outside of Little Birds all the time.

Here's a US example (just one)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2004/n11052004_2004110501.html

Dwarf slayers. (http://www.warhammeronline.com/english/media/artandillust/images/DwarfSlayervsBlackOrc.jpg)

And not just for protecting your flank!

Good traits in people trained to kill? Ok.... if you say so.

If they're willing to pick up a gun and stand in the line of fire to protect me, I won't go nitpicking their traits.

I've seen countless National Guardsmen attending to their fellow man-in search & rescue operations, protecting their property in times of emergency, feeding stranded cattle last week, fighting forest fires,amongst many other things-helping people that desperately need help.

Men that are 'trained to kill"-but in their regular jobs are firemen,policemen even teachers. Doing their best at what they think is right.

Far more than their selfish detractors in here. That just talk.

Damn-even the Marines "Toys for Tots" program at Christmas is way more than the petty talkers in here do for their fellow man.

Keep talking.

‘Their numbers block out the sun.’
‘Then we shall fight in the shade.’
I believe it’s “Our/Their arrows shall block out the sun”.

Unless the Persians were reeeeeeaaallllly tall.

It's been done more than once in Afghanistan by US forces. As well as being picked up by a smaller gunship, the Cobra.

Both helicopters have rings on the external hull to allow anyone with a carabiner to attach themselves to the outside and go for a ride.

US Special Forces ride on the outside of Little Birds all the time.



I'm very well aware of that. My point was not to waste your breath on people that have an inherent bias against these men. They'll never understand or be respectful. And never admit that its men like these that allow them to live the lifestyles they choose. They think talk keeps them safe and intact.

Here's a US example (just one)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2004/n11052004_2004110501.html

being in the same corp with men like these makes you strive to be better

I'm very well aware of that. My point was not to waste your breath on people that have an inherent bias against these men. They'll never understand or be respectful. And never admit that its men like these that allow them to live the lifestyles they choose. They think talk keeps them safe and intact.

They know that no soldier kept them intact in the past.

There is a lot to be said for never leaving a man behind.
Find me one country who was every REALLY pressed in a war, never leaving a man behind. It is a quaint notion the U.S has been allowed to have in their recent history, as they have not been in a war where they didn't have significant superiority of technology, manpower, equipment, or all three.

It is a nice idea. It will also be one of the 1st to be thrown away, if it becomes inconvenient.

They know that no soldier kept them intact in the past.

Really? There wouldn't have been an independent US without the actions of soldiers.

Find me one country who was every REALLY pressed in a war, never leaving a man behind. It is a quaint notion the U.S has been allowed to have in their recent history, as they have not been in a war where they didn't have significant superiority of technology, manpower, equipment, or all three.

It is a nice idea. It will also be one of the 1st to be thrown away, if it becomes inconvenient.

Apparently, not inconvenient enough for the US at this point. We seem to have a habit of losing more men trying to save a dead body, and insurgents know this - in fact, they count on it. We still do it.

Really? There wouldn't have been an independent US without the actions of soldiers.

And that has what exactly to do with me? :confused:

And that has what exactly to do with me? :confused:

You're not an American, so I can't help it that you've had to put up with the British far longer than we ever did.

While part of Ireland is free, the rest of it still appears to have British soldiers sitting on it. I guess the Irish soldier isn't too concerned about having a permanent occupation of the North, or they would have kicked the British off the island long ago.

You’re not an American, so I can’t help it that you’ve had to put up with the British far longer than we ever did.

While part of Ireland is free, the rest of it still appears to have British soldiers sitting on it. I guess the Irish soldier isn’t too concerned about having a permanent occupation of the North, or they would have kicked the British off the island long ago.
Eeeeehhhh, no.

It’s a tad more complicated than that.

You're not an American, so I can't help it that you've had to put up with the British far longer than we ever did.

While part of Ireland is free, the rest of it still appears to have British soldiers sitting on it. I guess the Irish soldier isn't too concerned about having a permanent occupation of the North, or they would have kicked the British off the island long ago.

I'm not Irish, either. I'm German. And very few people in Ireland would still regard the British as occupiers.

I’m not Irish, either. I’m German. And very few people in Ireland would still regard the British as occupiers.
Especially with the vast unionist communities.

I'm not Irish, either. I'm German. And very few people in Ireland would still regard the British as occupiers.

I think people's perceptions of soldiers depends on what's been done to them by soldiers.

Historically speaking, the British soldier in Irish eyes can't have had an endearing appeal (except to Protestants in the North who see them as protection).

I think people’s perceptions of soldiers depends on what’s been done to them by soldiers.
Or what they see soldiers and the people who pay their wages doing on TV.

Or what they see soldiers and the people who pay their wages doing on TV.

That's usually a mixed bag.

Good traits in people trained to kill? Ok.... if you say so.

Sometimes one needs to kill to defend those who cannot defend themselves.

I've never met a soldier who was in it for the money.

Teachers-yeah. Not soldiers,though.

Sometimes one needs to kill to defend those who cannot defend themselves.

Come on-people can defend themselves by talking...:rolleyes:

I've never met a soldier who was in it for the money.

Teachers-yeah. Not soldiers,though.

Considering that the low ranking soldiers aren't paid very well, it's kind of hard to say they're in it for the money.

I've never met a soldier who was in it for the money.

Teachers-yeah. Not soldiers,though.

I have. Several. Although mostly they were the higher-ranking types.
I do know a couple who had their time at university financed by the army, so you could say they were in it for the money.

I have. Several. Although they were the higher-ranking types.

Here in the US, you make a lot more money working as a software developer than as a one star general in the US military. And way more than any full colonel.

Still not seeing how even an officer in the US military can be "in it for the money".

Here in the US, you make a lot more money working as a software developer than as a one star general in the US military. And way more than any full colonel.

Still not seeing how even an officer in the US military can be "in it for the money".

No idea about the US, I'm talking Germany and Ireland here.

A lot of soldiers enlist for the same reason my brother did. Technical training and money for college. The GI Bill is the only chance for college some poorer Americans have. Both of my parents went to college on the GI Bill.

Cops here don't have guns.... but do go on, please.


Actually your cops do have guns.....just not all of them have guns....it is to give a false impression of safety without the need for guns.

People who want to serve their country become foster parents, teachers, or social workers.

People who want to kill, maim or otherwise harm others join the military.


You are a friggin idioit......is it at all possible for your narrow mind to focus anywhere in the reality of the world? It is impossible for anyone to do those other jobs you mention if nobody was to be a soldier. Like them or not talk bad about them or not, they guarantee others the right to make choices and to have the peace to do those other more enjoyable jobs you mention.

You are a friggin idioit......is it at all possible for your narrow mind to focus anywhere in the reality of the world? It is impossible for anyone to do those other jobs you mention if nobody was to be a soldier. Like them or not talk bad about them or not, they guarantee others the right to make choices and to have the peace to do those other more enjoyable jobs you mention.

What - Iranian soldiers do all that? Why, I never knew....

Actually your cops do have guns.....just not all of them have guns....it is to give a false impression of safety without the need for guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garda_S%C3%ADoch%C3%A1na#An_unarmed_force

If they needed them that desperately, they would have them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garda_S%C3%ADoch%C3%A1na#An_unarmed_force

If they needed them that desperately, they would have them.

Why should we have police in Ireland? Anyone who is trained to hurt people doesn't have any good aspects in your book.

What - Iranian soldiers do all that? Why, I never knew....

You can make your bitter sarcastic liberal "We all just need to talk and hug" line of BS...... but you are a very closed minded naive person who is unable to admit the truth that soldiers are normal people who go beyond the call for normal and do things that are good for a society when it is most needed. If you actually just take a realists view of history you will see some of the greatest mind, thinkers, writers, politicians and even medical people have been soldiers because they were needed to be. But I am sure that would be too much for your small mind to ever admit that just because I could never do it does not mean that others who can are good people.

If there were not good and admirable soldiers in the world now and in past history..... who would be there to stand up to those who would force their will upon the masses?

You seem to think soldiers are people who are killers, but soldiers do not want to go to war. They train hard hoping they never have to use their training, but they train so that if they must then they have a chance to survive or to help their fellows survive. Soldiers hate war more then anyone, because they have to fight it. They also only usually have to fight because "talk" and politicians were unable to resolve the issue.

You talk about the fact that you are German.....but without soldiers there would never have been a country to call Germany....better or not it would still probably be a conglomerate of small nation states sitting around and that region would still be way underdeveloped. But hey that might be a good thing.... depending on your point of view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garda_S%C3%ADoch%C3%A1na#An_unarmed_force

If they needed them that desperately, they would have them.


It is very admirable that they work without guns, but having the guns available for use does work as a deterent to some and does not make them police without guns....just police who do not regularly carry them....they still have them.

As a soldier I do not always walk around with a gun.....but it is available when I need it.... so does that not classify me as the same as your police? And does that not debunk your thought of soldiers being cold blooded killers only....because if they were they would carry them all the time.

Okay, in seriousness:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson_and_his_donkey

I'm glad to see that story hasn't been forgotten by Aussies. :)

People who want to serve their country become foster parents, teachers, or social workers.

People who want to kill, maim or otherwise harm others join the military.

:rolleyes:

It must be so liberating to be completely unencumbered by the process of thought.

You are a friggin idioit......is it at all possible for your narrow mind to focus anywhere in the reality of the world? It is impossible for anyone to do those other jobs you mention if nobody was to be a soldier. Like them or not talk bad about them or not, they guarantee others the right to make choices and to have the peace to do those other more enjoyable jobs you mention.

if there were no armies we wouldn't need protection, a number of countries have abolished their armies with no ill effect. Armies give countries the means to assert dominance over other countries, if there were no armies there would be no wars.



You can make your bitter sarcastic liberal "We all just need to talk and hug" line of BS...... but you are a very closed minded naive person who is unable to admit the truth that soldiers are normal people who go beyond the call for normal and do things that are good for a society when it is most needed. If you actually just take a realists view of history you will see some of the greatest mind, thinkers, writers, politicians and even medical people have been soldiers because they were needed to be. But I am sure that would be too much for your small mind to ever admit that just because I could never do it does not mean that others who can are good people.

If there were not good and admirable soldiers in the world now and in past history..... who would be there to stand up to those who would force their will upon the masses?

You seem to think soldiers are people who are killers, but soldiers do not want to go to war. They train hard hoping they never have to use their training, but they train so that if they must then they have a chance to survive or to help their fellows survive. Soldiers hate war more then anyone, because they have to fight it. They also only usually have to fight because "talk" and politicians were unable to resolve the issue.

You talk about the fact that you are German.....but without soldiers there would never have been a country to call Germany....better or not it would still probably be a conglomerate of small nation states sitting around and that region would still be way underdeveloped. But hey that might be a good thing.... depending on your point of view.

there are three types of soldiers, 1st-conscripted who wanted no part of it, 2nd-the poor or unemployed who sign up for economic reasons, 3rd-professionals who want to kill, I've seen enough tv interviews with soldiers who signed up wanting to fight and kill, they can't wait to get into battle, it's what they live for.

if there were no armies we wouldn't need protection, a number of countries have abolished their armies with no ill effect. Armies give countries the means to assert dominance over other countries, if there were no armies there would be no wars.





there are three types of soldiers, 1st-conscripted who wanted no part of it, 2nd-the poor or unemployed who sign up for economic reasons, 3rd-professionals who want to kill, I've seen enough tv interviews with soldiers who signed up wanting to fight and kill, they can't wait to get into battle, it's what they live for.

Which countries have given up their armies? Please note that even the Vatican has an army. Very small albeit.


And tv interviews eh? Since the tv seems only to want to show the sensational I would think they are going to find those few whom you describe instead of the majority of profesional soldiers....I do think I qualify for that since I have 15 years in so far and am getting ready to re-up for 6 more...... and since I can't think of too many who want to kill, kill, kill and can't wait to get into battle I am thinking your tv interviews are the exception not the example.

Which countries have given up their armies? Please note that even the Vatican has an army. Very small albeit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_an_army

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_an_army

That's a crap list. Technically you could throw the falklands and the isle of man in there too.

Good traits in people trained to kill? Ok.... if you say so.

Yeah. They are trained to kill. And you know what? They have good traits too. Wow! What a concept--cause one "flaw" (in your mind, their profession) necessarily precludes the fact that they are good people. By your logic, I wouldn't expect anyone to have good traits because of their profession. I'm sure that everyone not in the military is perfect, then, or are they just the only ones that are allowed to have human traits that you see as good?

"Hey! I fragged 10 baddies today, 2 with a headshot! I am so damn brave it hurts!'

How the hell would you frag someone with a headshot?

Oh yeah, you don't know anything about war. Just keep talking, then.

That's a crap list. Technically you could throw the falklands and the isle of man in there too.

every one of those countries is independent so how is it crap? Falklands and Isle of Mann are not countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_an_army

If you notice each of those countries is protected by someone else which allows them to be without an army.... so the argument of no army means no need for an army is killed before it can be used. They are all protected by someones army.

every one of those countries is independent so how is it crap? Falklands and Isle of Mann are not countries.

O'rly?

That's a crap list. Technically you could throw the falklands and the isle of man in there too.

I'm just throwing it out there for public dissection. I think your two examples are probably best ruled out as they are overseas dependencies or territories of the UK. As to whether other entries on the list have a similar status with regard to other countries, I haven't looked too closely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_an_army

Notice that none of those countries have any serious influence...not much of any influence, really...oh yeah, they can be without a military because no one wants to attack them. No one would have a reason to. They just aren't that important. ;)

If you notice each of those countries is protected by someone else which allows them to be without an army....

Kiribati, Tuvalu and the Solomon Islands?

Notice that none of those countries have any serious influence...not much of any influence, really...

This just in: the Vatican City has 'not much of any influence'. Further updates as we get 'em.

If you notice each of those countries is protected by someone else which allows them to be without an army.... so the argument of no army means no need for an army is killed before it can be used. They are all protected by someones army.

look again several have only a police force and no other country is protecting them.

This just in: the Vatican City has 'not much of any influence'. Further updates as we get 'em.

Oh wait...the Vatican has an army...damn, thought you had me

I'm just throwing it out there for public dissection. I think your two examples are probably best ruled out as they are overseas dependencies or territories of the UK. As to whether other entries on the list have a similar status with regard to other countries, I haven't looked too closely.

Just 'cos they have the queen doesn't make canada a dependent.

Really, if it were so cut and dried I'd be on the dole in the caymans right now.

Good lord...trying to imagine how many people you have insulted in only two sentences is daunting...as is the depth of your apparent ignorance...

Personally, my cousin is heading to Afghanistan in a year. He's an MP. I don't care what your views on the war are, disrespecting men who fight and die so you don't have to is perhaps the most worthless thing you can do as a person.who is braver?
your Cousin?
or the insurgents he is trying to kill?

As usual, this has turned into a tard contest.

Yeah. They are trained to kill. And you know what? They have good traits too. Wow! What a concept--cause one "flaw" (in your mind, their profession) necessarily precludes the fact that they are good people. By your logic, I wouldn't expect anyone to have good traits because of their profession. I'm sure that everyone not in the military is perfect, then, or are they just the only ones that are allowed to have human traits that you see as good?

Will you please all stop putting words in my mouth? Or at least read the posts I made explaining what I meant?
I already pointed out that this thread is - according to the OP - about the best soldier, not the best dad, not the best lover, not the best humanitarian.
Pointing out how soldiers collect for children around christmas and how you neighbour is a soldier and a good guy does not contribute much to this discussion.
I never claimed all soldiers were monsters. All I did say is that I see nothing laudable in their profession. I know they're just regular people (most of them), but I object to their profession. And we are discussing their profession here, not their domestic life!!!

As usual, this has turned into a tard contest.it was a turd from the OP..

it was a turd from the OP..

I disagree. It could have been full of examples of heroic and selfless acts in the face of danger, but instead, we get a horde of naive detractors wandering in and a festival of stool.

You can make your bitter sarcastic liberal "We all just need to talk and hug" line of BS...... but you are a very closed minded naive person who is unable to admit the truth that soldiers are normal people who go beyond the call for normal and do things that are good for a society when it is most needed. If you actually just take a realists view of history you will see some of the greatest mind, thinkers, writers, politicians and even medical people have been soldiers because they were needed to be. But I am sure that would be too much for your small mind to ever admit that just because I could never do it does not mean that others who can are good people.

If there were not good and admirable soldiers in the world now and in past history..... who would be there to stand up to those who would force their will upon the masses?

You seem to think soldiers are people who are killers, but soldiers do not want to go to war. They train hard hoping they never have to use their training, but they train so that if they must then they have a chance to survive or to help their fellows survive. Soldiers hate war more then anyone, because they have to fight it. They also only usually have to fight because "talk" and politicians were unable to resolve the issue.

You talk about the fact that you are German.....but without soldiers there would never have been a country to call Germany....better or not it would still probably be a conglomerate of small nation states sitting around and that region would still be way underdeveloped. But hey that might be a good thing.... depending on your point of view.

No, I think that soldiers are people who kill. Prove me wrong.
I'm not talking about my countries soldiers or your countries soldiers, but soldiers as such. Soldiers fight wars becaue other soldiers fight wars.

I don't care about the country called Germany. I happened to have been born there, and grew up there for lack of options. Without soldiers, there might have been a country called Germany a lot sooner, as none of the little German tyrannies would have been able to effectively oppress their people and remain a little tyranny instead of joining into one whole country.

Good traits in people trained to kill? Ok.... if you say so.

Whats wrong with being trained to kill?

Some people NEED to be killed and continue to prove it,day after day.

Hmm...so, everyone in the military is evil because all they do is kill. Let us, for the sake of argument, say that this is true - that all people in the military are evil.

Now, let us say that I have a military unit - this unit, according to you, is evil. This unit fought in every major military engagement since the creation of the US. It fought at Normandy, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Manila Bay, Vietnam, and fired the first shot in the first Naval battle in the Civil War. Obviously, they have killed people, and are evil.

What if I were to tell you that this unit is the United States Coast Guard?

Whats wrong with being trained to kill?

Depends. If you're going to kill, you might as well get trained for it.

Depends. If you're going to kill, you might as well get trained for it.

So whats the problem?

It would be a pretty shitty military if we weren't trained to kill.

So whats the problem?

Very good question.

Apparently, a lot of people assume that I'm naive and small minded for not approving of violent conflict and its participants.
I find it quite interesting to read what I'm told I have said, or even what I'm told I am thinking... fascinating.

Very good question.

Apparently, a lot of people assume that I'm naive and small minded for not approving of violent conflict and its participants.
I find it quite interesting to read what I'm told I have said, or even what I'm told I am thinking... fascinating.

But, do you recognize that there is a different between individual soldiers and violent conflicts?

No, I think that soldiers are people who kill. Prove me wrong.
I'm not talking about my countries soldiers or your countries soldiers, but soldiers as such. Soldiers fight wars becaue other soldiers fight wars.

I don't care about the country called Germany. I happened to have been born there, and grew up there for lack of options. Without soldiers, there might have been a country called Germany a lot sooner, as none of the little German tyrannies would have been able to effectively oppress their people and remain a little tyranny instead of joining into one whole country.

Pacifists sleep soundly in their beds because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Never forget that.

You're not an American, so I can't help it that you've had to put up with the British far longer than we ever did.

While part of Ireland is free, the rest of it still appears to have British soldiers sitting on it. I guess the Irish soldier isn't too concerned about having a permanent occupation of the North, or they would have kicked the British off the island long ago.the Brits have nukes..

the only way to figth a Country with more expensive hardwarez&nukez is.. Insurgency AKA guerrilla AKA terrorwizm.

not regular Army vs regular Army.
h-v-u ever analized the American Revolution?

Seconding-- well more like 1,002nding the 300 Spartans at Thermopolye. No 300 soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan would fight 1,000,000 enemy combatants in the shade of their bullets.

No, but I did 'analize' you mom last night.

I'm sorry, I couldn't let that one go.

Oh, by the way, most of the Revolutionary War was NOT non-conventional warfare. Most of it was us retreating because the Brits kept whupping us.

So whats the problem?the problem is that for most of us.. Our Govs train us to kill insurgents.

Insurgets defending their people against occupation.

Most of us (NSG posters) come from USA, UK, Australia.

so indeed.. If any of us is ever going to be traine d to kill... It is not going to be for defense.

Canada?

once upon a time Canadian army was mainly used for blue helmet intevention.
not anymore.

the problem is that for most of us.. Our Govs train us to kill insurgents.

Insurgets defending their people against occupation.

Most of us (NSG posters) come from USA, UK, Australia, Canada.

once upon a time Canadian army was mainly used for blue helmet intevention.
not anymore.

so indeed.. If any of us is ever going to be traine d to kill... It is not going to be for defense.

So whats the problem?

But, do you recognize that there is a different between individual soldiers and violent conflicts?

I have stated it numerous times before, but I'll say it again, sure.

I know that soldiers are just normal people. I know that they have families, are nice to their grandparents, collect toys for kids and regularly donate blood. I never denied any of that. But that's not what this thread is supposed to be about, is it? It's about "the best traits of a trained soldier".

Now, are you going to tell that these traits are being a good family father and devoted husband? Or are they rather the more violent kind?

Pacifists sleep soundly in their beds because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Never forget that.

I've spent much of my life doing anything but sleeping soundly in my bed.

I have stated it numerous times before, but I'll say it again, sure.

I know that soldiers are just normal people. I know that they have families, are nice to their grandparents, collect toys for kids and regularly donate blood. I never denied any of that. But that's not what this thread is supposed to be about, is it? It's about "the best traits of a trained soldier".

Now, are you going to tell that these traits are being a good family father and devoted husband? Or are they rather the more violent kind?

So do you recognize that many, many soldiers have done various heroic acts. Many have sacrificed themselvse to save thousands of others, or to rescue people from opressors or terrible natural disasters. Are you aware that without soldiers, many of the countries that we live in probably would have been invaded/destroyed etc... by now?

Are you aware that without soldiers, many of the countries that we live in probably would have been invaded/destroyed etc... by now?By whom and what with?

By whom and what with?

Obviously there will always be countries with soldiers, so removing the military from any country is pointless.

No one agrees with me on the WWI thing?

Obviously there will always be countries with soldiers, so removing the military from any country is pointless.Should have made your premiss clearer then. But ok.

Bravest?

Definatly the Japanese. They were the only ones "brave" enough to charge American soldiers with BARs.

..or to rescue people from opressors..you mean like in Iraq ?

you mean like in Iraq ?

I mean anywhere.

who is braver?
your Cousin?
or the insurgents he is trying to kill?

I don't really think that you can put a quantity of bravery but if i must. Both are fighting for what they believe in. They are both putting it all on the line for what it right in their mind. That in itself is brave and are both equal until that point. Then it is all based on their actions. If the insurgent was to lead an ambush against his convoy while he cowered in the back of the convoy letting others fight then the insurgent is more brave. If the insurgent laid an ied and ran away and his cousin was leading the reaction to the ied then his cousin would be braver. Just by being on one side doesn't make you more brave than the other. Oh, and there is also a difference between courage and intelligence. The insurgent who laid the ied is intelligent b/c he will live to fight again but he also didn't do anything brave.

Like countries such as the US, France, Holland, and many others.

you mean like in Iraq ?

How about Nazi Germany?

Gandhi's 'Army', also the 1916 rebels in Dublin. Both for taking on the big superpower of the time.

Good traits in people trained to kill? Ok.... if you say so.
As anti-military as I am, this is too simplistic. In conscripted armies (as most armies have probably historically been), most of the soldiers are probably good people, but they were too weak to defy their government. They lacked the virtue of strength, but that doesn't mean they lacked other virtues.

you mean like in Iraq ?

Was U.S. intervention in WWII justified?

Gandhi's 'Army', also the 1916 rebels in Dublin. Both for taking on the big superpower of the time.


As anti-military as I am, this is too simplistic. In conscripted armies (as most armies have probably historically been), most of the soldiers are probably good people, but they were too weak to defy their government. They lacked the virtue of strength, but that doesn't mean they lacked other virtues.

Assuming that it's always right to defy your country :rolleyes:

So do you recognize that many, many soldiers have done various heroic acts. Many have sacrificed themselvse to save thousands of others, or to rescue people from opressors or terrible natural disasters. Are you aware that without soldiers, many of the countries that we live in probably would have been invaded/destroyed etc... by now?

Without soldiers, who would do the invading?
No, I'm not naive enough to call for all military to be abolished. But I don't have to like that fact, now, do I?
I'm not against US soldiers, or Swiss soldiers, or Somali soldiers... I don't like the concept nor the profession of "soldier".

Without soldiers, who would do the invading?
No, I'm not naive enough to call for all military to be abolished. But I don't have to like that fact, now, do I?
I'm not against US soldiers, or Swiss soldiers, or Somali soldiers... I don't like the concept nor the profession of "soldier".

I geuss that's fair. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. I don't like artists so it's all good.

Without soldiers, who would do the invading?
No, I'm not naive enough to call for all military to be abolished. But I don't have to like that fact, now, do I?
I'm not against US soldiers, or Swiss soldiers, or Somali soldiers... I don't like the concept nor the profession of "soldier".

But you are aware that they are nescacerry(sp?), and that as mentioned before they often perform very heroic acts and make sure you can sleep safe each night.

But you are aware that they are nescacerry(sp?), and that as mentioned before they often perform very heroic acts and make sure you can sleep safe each night.

Nope. The way I see it, there are several times the number of soldiers who would invade a country I happen to live in at any given moment and kill me in my bed than there are soldiers out there who might protect me.
The only thing that keeps that from happening is the fact that politics keeps all those soldiers (and their leadership) from ganging up.

Essentially, there are more soldiers that I would have to consider enemies than there are soldiers I could call friends. So, overall, I regard soldiers as a threat.

you mean like in Iraq ?
Actually, if I had to pick one example I think I would choose India's intervention in East Pakistan in 1971. The Bengals were getting slaughtered by the Pakistanis.

Nope. The way I see it, there are several times the number of soldiers who would invade a country I happen to live in at any given moment and kill me in my bed than there are soldiers out there who might protect me.
The only thing that keeps that from happening is the fact that politics keeps all those soldiers (and their leadership) from ganging up.

Essentially, there are more soldiers that I would have to consider enemies than there are soldiers I could call friends. So, overall, I regard soldiers as a threat.

No, no, no and no. Non military Politics do not stop enemies from being invaded, the only reason the USA has not been invaded is because of the size of it's....military arms I assure you.

If you do not accept that the fact you have a military is protecting you then you are wrong.

Also, the fact that there are more enemies then allies is in no way justification to generalize against the military, in any case it actually makes them more needed.

No, no, no and no. Non military Politics do not stop enemies from being invaded, the only reason the USA has not been invaded is because of the size of it's....military arms I assure you.

If you do not accept that the fact you have a military is protecting you then you are wrong.

Also, the fact that there are more enemies then allies is in no way justification to generalize against the military, in any case it actually makes them more needed.

*lol
Who is talking about the USA? I don't live there.

And I have never disputed that military is a necessary evil. However, I do dispute the fact that military is protecting me.

*lol
Who is talking about the USA? I don't live there.

And I have never disputed that military is a necessary evil. However, I do dispute the fact that military is protecting me.

Well, if it wasn't for your army, you certainly wouldn't be independent from British rule, and i'm certainly not talking about the IRA.

Also, if you personally not getting protected from the army, do you accept that many others in different countries are?

Well, if it wasn't for your army, you certainly wouldn't be independent from British rule, and i'm certainly not talking about the IRA.

Also, if you personally not getting protected from the army, do you accept that many others in different countries are?

I'm not Irish. I just happen to live here.

Well, so there are soldiers protecting people from being killed by other soldiers by killing said soldiers. Who, in turn, are again loving husbands and devoted family fathers and Red Cross volunteers etc.

I'm not Irish. I just happen to live here.

Well, so there are soldiers protecting people from being killed by other soldiers by killing said soldiers. Who, in turn, are again loving husbands and devoted family fathers and Red Cross volunteers etc.

Yeah I know you're German I've just remembered. Anyway, is that a yes?

Nope. The way I see it, there are several times the number of soldiers who would invade a country I happen to live in at any given moment and kill me in my bed than there are soldiers out there who might protect me.
The only thing that keeps that from happening is the fact that politics keeps all those soldiers (and their leadership) from ganging up.

Essentially, there are more soldiers that I would have to consider enemies than there are soldiers I could call friends. So, overall, I regard soldiers as a threat.

Actually you are wrong that politics keeps soldiers from ganging up.....it is politics that give soldiers a need to exist. War is caused by the breakdown of politics and the fact that when two people can no longer work things out through talking they end up fighting....so politicians are the reason there are soldiers.....and the reason there needs to be soldiers. SO I guess you should be dislikeing politicians more then you dislike the career of soldier.

Actually you are wrong that politics keeps soldiers from ganging up.....it is politics that give soldiers a need to exist. War is caused by the breakdown of politics and the fact that when two people can no longer work things out through talking they end up fighting....so politicians are the reason there are soldiers.....and the reason there needs to be soldiers. SO I guess you should be dislikeing politicians more then you dislike the career of soldier.

So you're saying the reason that all nations on the planet are not currently unitedly invading the USA has nothing to do with politics? ;)

Yeah I know you're German I've just remembered. Anyway, is that a yes?

They would be protected by soldiers from soldiers. I object to both, not just one side.

So you're saying the reason that all nations on the planet are not currently unitedly invading the USA has nothing to do with politics? ;)

It has somewhat to do with politics, but if the USA didn't have a decent military then it would have been invaded ages ago, very likely nuked too since nothing was stopping Russia from giving Castro hundreds of Nukes as well as the fact that Russia admitted that they wanted to destroy the USA. Now you may say that the Cuban missile crisis was solved politically, and it was partly but they would have had nothing without that sea blockade.

The Russians in WWI and WWII. Going forward, usually not even armed with a gun, staight into the teeth of german machine guns? Knowing that if you turn back, your own machine guns will chop you down. Simply being able to live, let alone fight in those conditions...

Sure the Spartans were brave, but you're basing this off of 300 men... if we look to any nation, we can find 300 extremely brave men. The Russians had millions of men... they had to march to, fight in and die at the front, usually unarmed, in some of the coldest weather on earth. That my friends, is bravery.

The Russians in WWI and WWII. Going forward, usually not even armed with a gun, staight into the teeth of german machine guns? Knowing that if you turn back, your own machine guns will chop you down. Simply being able to live, let alone fight in those conditions...


Too bad their officers and administrators were complete idiots.

War is a continuation of politics by other means. - Carl von Clauswitz

War is a nessecary (sp) evil used when conventional politics has failed - it is the means to a political end when other options are not viable. There are people, there are countries, that there is no possibility of negotiating with - after all, if a country's goal is to take you over, consequences be damned, how do you negotiate out of that? It is an ugly tool, but one that will always be needed at some point, and a country needs people to fight these wars. You are asking good people to do kill and be killed - these people don't want to die, they don't want to kill others who have done no personal wrong to them, but they also know that if they don't do it, who will? How will the pacifist stop an enemy soldier from taking over his land?

I'm not asking a man to admire my profession because I will be called upon to kill, but I ask them to admire it because I am sacrificing, physically and emotionally, for others.

So you're saying the reason that all nations on the planet are not currently unitedly invading the USA has nothing to do with politics? ;)


What I said was war is a breakdown of diplomacy....so blame the diplomats(politics) not the soldiers.:D

Some of humanities greatest acheivements have come from war and preparing for war. One good example is the internet. Developed by DARPA in the 60's. Great advances in the aircraft were made for the military originally. The microwave was also created by accident through military radar technology. And one more example is GPS.

Its very good that some of you would feel fine without soldiers defending you, but those brave men and women are out there defending everyone else (including me) who feel secure because of them. A soldier defends an entire nation, even people like you who scorn them as killers and have no respect for their profession, so at least have the decency to respect them for that, whether or not you agree.

As for insurgents being brave, I don't see a whole lot of bravery in killing soldiers handing out candy to children, or planting bombs on roads in the middle of the night, or shooting rockets at a schoolhouse, or putting an axe in the head of a soldier who's trying to talk out a solution to the problems in the country with some village elders; letting alone the fact that these insurgents kill at least 50 times more of their own innocent civilians than foreign soldiers.

I'm not asking a man to admire my profession because I will be called upon to kill, but I ask them to admire it because I am sacrificing, physically and emotionally, for others.

I'm gonna go ahead and geuss that you're not a soldier b/c nobody w/ honor would ever ask someone to admire them.

How about Nazi Germany?

Yeah, with more pacifistic, naive, liberal commies in Nazi Germany, probably that one wouldn't have had to been overtrown either.

*rolls eyes*

Wow, semantics rules again. I said admire because 'not throw trash at me and curse me out because I'm in uniform' makes for a lengthy sentence.

Bravest?

Definatly the Japanese. They were the only ones "brave" enough to charge American soldiers with BARs.

That's more stupid.

*rolls eyes*

Wow, semantics rules again. I said admire because 'not throw trash at me and curse me out because I'm in uniform' makes for a lengthy sentence.

No there's a pretty big difference between admiring and not throwing trash.:rolleyes: If you really are a soldier which i completely doubt then just do it w/o calling attention to yourself just so you can feel good about yourself.

Nope. The way I see it, there are several times the number of soldiers who would invade a country I happen to live in at any given moment and kill me in my bed than there are soldiers out there who might protect me.
The only thing that keeps that from happening is the fact that politics keeps all those soldiers (and their leadership) from ganging up.

Essentially, there are more soldiers that I would have to consider enemies than there are soldiers I could call friends. So, overall, I regard soldiers as a threat.

Well using that logic, there are probably more Arabs that would rather kill me in my sleep, than be my friend, therefore I now regard all people of Arab origin as enemies. :rolleyes: :sarcasm:

Wow.

Seeing as I have all of thirty-something posts, why don't you go and read them and tell me how many times I've said 'I'm in the military.' For someone who is 'calling attention to themselves' for being in the military, I'm doing a pretty shitty job of it.

No, you know what, I'm sorry. Let me reword it for you.

I'm not asking you to respect soldiers because they kill people, I'm asking you to respect soldiers because they sacrificing, physically and emotionally, for others.

Since you can't seem to get past nitpicking word usage, I've decided to help you out. Hope this clears everything up for you. Sorry for the confusion.

Wow.

Seeing as I have all of thirty-something posts, why don't you go and read them and tell me how many times I've said 'I'm in the military.' For someone who is 'calling attention to themselves' for being in the military, I'm doing a pretty shitty job of it.

No, you know what, I'm sorry. Let me reword it for you.

I'm not asking you to respect soldiers because they kill people, I'm asking you to respect soldiers because they sacrificing, physically and emotionally, for others.

Since you can't seem to get past nitpicking word usage, I've decided to help you out. Hope this clears everything up for you. Sorry for the confusion.

I'd rather you not have to ask for respect but understand that some people aren't intelligent enough and don't know what it means to sacrafice so they will never truly respect you. My dad is in afghanistan and in 2 years im going hoping to be at the naval academy so don't think that i don't respect you if you are truly a soldier which i still doubt. BTW, if you press the quote button in the bottom right of everybody's post you can quote what they said and respond to it directly.

The Russians in WWI and WWII. Going forward, usually not even armed with a gun, staight into the teeth of german machine guns? Knowing that if you turn back, your own machine guns will chop you down. Simply being able to live, let alone fight in those conditions...

Sure the Spartans were brave, but you're basing this off of 300 men... if we look to any nation, we can find 300 extremely brave men. The Russians had millions of men... they had to march to, fight in and die at the front, usually unarmed, in some of the coldest weather on earth. That my friends, is bravery.

How is it bravery when there's a gun pointed at your back?

The Spartans and their allies knew it was a suicide mission, and they went anyways...most of them volunteers. Because of their sacrifice, the Persian army was eventually driven from Greece, and the cradle of Western Civilization was preserved.

...the date of the battle should be remembered by anyone lucky enough to live in a modern, Western nation.

Some of humanities greatest acheivements have come from war and preparing for war. One good example is the internet. Developed by DARPA in the 60's. Great advances in the aircraft were made for the military originally. The microwave was also created by accident through military radar technology. And one more example is GPS.

Those are hardly up there with the wheel, weaving or writing though, are they?

War doesn't create new inventions out of nowhere, at best it can be said to hasten them.

Pacifists sleep soundly in their beds because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Never forget that.

Men standing ready to do violence remain very much the problem though.

... but you're basing this off of 300 men... if we look to any nation, we can find 300 extremely brave men.one thing about this 300 thing..

we dont know if it was actually 300.. or 3000 or 30..
there is no proof.. all this actually took place the way the greek poem goes..

for generations.. Hollywood has been painting our collective vision of history..

but it is not reality.. its just a movie.

Storm'd at with shot & shell,
Boldly they rode & well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
  Rode the six hundred.

Respect the light Brigade, bitches.

Those are hardly up there with the wheel, weaving or writing though, are they?

War doesn't create new inventions out of nowhere, at best it can be said to hasten them.

What institution created the wheel, weaving or writing? Didn't think so. GPS was out of nowhere, the microwave was out of nowhere, jet engines were out of nowhere, the internet was out of nowhere. Your comments are completely w/o base. None of those things would have been thought of w/o military intentions and military funding.

What institution created the wheel, weaving or writing?

Peace, I would wager. If you can call war an institution, then I am within my rights to call peace one.

Didn't think so. GPS was out of nowhere, the microwave was out of nowhere, jet engines were out of nowhere, the internet was out of nowhere. Your comments are completely w/o base. None of those things would have been thought of w/o military intentions and military funding.

Jet engines hardly came out of nowhere - an englishman had a working model during peacetime. He certainly didn't depend on military funding for developing it.

Peace, I would wager. If you can call war an institution, then I am within my rights to call peace one.
The military is an institution. Peace is a condition.



Jet engines hardly came out of nowhere - an englishman had a working model during peacetime. He certainly didn't depend on military funding for developing it.

The first jet aircraft was designed and built by germany. For military purposes.

The first jet aircraft was designed and built by germany. For military purposes.

Yes, but the jet engine, which you were talking about in your last post was not a military invention, and so the claim that it came out of nowhere is mistaken.

Gurkhas and Sikhs.
Nay, the 28th (Maori) Battalion.

Nay, the 28th (Maori) Battalion.

Battle of Saragarhi :p

Battle of Saragarhi :p
Battle of 42nd Street!

Actually yes the Gurkhas were formidable opponents and seemed to have a death wish.

those who face the ANZACs in war

Nay, the 28th (Maori) Battalion.
Seconded.
The Kiwi SAS in Vietnam were pretty damn good as well. Pretty much the only soldiers the Viet Cong actually feared - they called them 'Grey Ghosts' due to the Kiwi's jungle skills. (In an interview I read one of them said how much he enjoyed going into the jungle on patrol as it was just like hunting in the Urerewas)

Bravest soldier in human history would be Charles Upham.

surprisingly, another Kiwi!

Seconded.
The Kiwi SAS in Vietnam were pretty damn good as well. Pretty much the only soldiers the Viet Cong actually feared - they called them 'Grey Ghosts' due to the Kiwi's jungle skills. (In an interview I read one of them said how much he enjoyed going into the jungle on patrol as it was just like hunting in the Urerewas)

Bravest soldier in human history would be Charles Upham.

surprisingly, another Kiwi!

they all so feared the Australian SAS and our troops

Good traits in people trained to kill? Ok.... if you say so.

Indeed. American and British forces at Bastogne, Leonidas and his Three Hundred, General Washington and the Continental Army and Continental Marines, etc... Despite what some think, most soldiers are truly good people. My brother, my father, my grandfather on my mother's side, and many more in my family served and are serving well in the American military.

~ Romandeos.

they all so feared the Australian SAS and our troops

I don't doubt. But I've only read up on the Kiwi's involvement (I did a paper on History of Warfare and the Lecturer's main interest was Gallipoli and Kiwi involvement in Asia - Malaysia and Vietnam). The Kiwis were nearly all pig-and-deer-hunters, so all once they got used to the heat & humidity they felt right at home in the jungle.
As opposed to the poor urban sods the US sent.

That's what you get for sending in well-trained soldiers.

Also, the US would 'copter their guys right to the middle of the patrol area, which gave the local Viet Cong time to escape or lay in wait.
The Kiwis would hike up to 20 miles to their patrol point, so the VCs had no way of knowing where and when the Kiwis would be.
Again, from the paper I did, a Kiwi soldier spoke of one incident where he was at the arse-end of the patrol, heard a noise and turned round to find himself facing a VC at the arse-end of their patrol only 2m away. The two groups had gone past without seeing each other.
Ensuring fight wiped out the VC patrol with no casualties on the Kiwi side.

Seconded.
The Kiwi SAS in Vietnam were pretty damn good as well. Pretty much the only soldiers the Viet Cong actually feared - they called them 'Grey Ghosts' due to the Kiwi's jungle skills. (In an interview I read one of them said how much he enjoyed going into the jungle on patrol as it was just like hunting in the Urerewas)

Bravest soldier in human history would be Charles Upham.

surprisingly, another Kiwi!
Yeah i've heard of the 'Grey Ghosts' or at least the 'Ghost that Walks'.

The whole list of them
http://www.militarybadges.info/nz-army/page/21-vc-winners.htm
My favourites
Upham, Ngarimu, Travis(King of No mans land), Ward and TRIGG

Ward
Sergeant James Ward (RNZAF)

"On 7/8 July 1941, while returning from one of the attack's on Münster, Sergeant James Ward of No 75 (NZ) Squadron was a second pilot in a Wellington attacked by an Me 110 over the Zuider Zee. The rear-gunner was wounded, much damage done, the starboard wing set ablaze. The crew were preparing to abandon the aircraft when Ward volunteered to go out on the wing and try to smother the flames with a cockpit cover which had served in the plane as a cushion. Attached to a rope and with the help of the navigator, he climbed through the narrow astro-hatch - far from easy in flying gear, even on the ground - put on his parachute, kicked holes in the Wellington's covering fabric to get foot and hand-holds on the geodetic lattices, and descended three foot to the wing. He then worked his way along to behind the engine, and, despite the fierce slipstream from the propeller, managed while lying down to smother the fire. Isolated from the leaking petrol pipe, this later burnt itself out. Ward, exhausted, regained the astro-hatch with great difficulty: "the hardest of the lot," he wrote, "was getting my right leg in. In the end the navigator reached out and pulled it in." Despite all the damage, the crew got home to a safe landing - perhaps the most remarkable thing, apart from Ward's exploit, being the fact that the pilot had no idea at the time what Ward was doing.

This deed performed by Ward, a young schoolmaster before the war, earned him the Victoria Cross, and which must surely be unsurpassed for calculated bravery. Sadly, Sergeant Ward was killed on a Hamburg raid only ten weeks later - before he received his Victoria Cross."

I don't doubt. But I've only read up on the Kiwi's involvement (I did a paper on History of Warfare and the Lecturer's main interest was Gallipoli and Kiwi involvement in Asia - Malaysia and Vietnam). The Kiwis were nearly all pig-and-deer-hunters, so all once they got used to the heat & humidity they felt right at home in the jungle.
As opposed to the poor urban sods the US sent.

That's what you get for sending in well-trained soldiers.

Also, the US would 'copter their guys right to the middle of the patrol area, which gave the local Viet Cong time to escape or lay in wait.
The Kiwis would hike up to 20 miles to their patrol point, so the VCs had no way of knowing where and when the Kiwis would be.
Again, from the paper I did, a Kiwi soldier spoke of one incident where he was at the arse-end of the patrol, heard a noise and turned round to find himself facing a VC at the arse-end of their patrol only 2m away. The two groups had gone past without seeing each other.
Ensuring fight wiped out the VC patrol with no casualties on the Kiwi side.

Gallipoli that place is part of my Family History as my Great Grand'Father was there

they all so feared the Australian SAS and our troops
Although i dont mean to insult you...
Australia has been and is well known for stealing all things Kiwi, Phar Lap, Kiwi, Marmite(Turning it into that sodomite substance known as Vegemite), Shihad.

Have you ever heard...
"Give me the New Zealand Division and i will take over the world."
That is reportadly from Rommel however i've also seen...
"Give me 2 Australian Divisions and i will take over the world."

As can clearly be seen 2 Australian Divisions would be required to conquer the world or 1 New Zealand Division.

To summise
New Zealand>Australia>Everyone else

Although i dont mean to insult you...
Australia has been and is well known for stealing all things Kiwi, Phar Lap, Kiwi, Marmite(Turning it into that sodomite substance known as Vegemite), Shihad.

Have you ever heard...
"Give me the New Zealand Division and i will take over the world."
That is reportadly from Rommel however i've also seen...
"Give me 2 Australian Divisions and i will take over the world."

As can clearly be seen 2 Australian Divisions would be required to conquer the world or 1 New Zealand Division.

To summise
New Zealand>Australia>Everyone else

give him one of each

give him one of each
Make them into Space Marines and conquer every planetary body that ever existed?;)

Make them into Space Marines and conquer every planetary body that ever existed?;)

be fun but what name are we conquring them under
got to be a cool one but puts fear into those that hear we are came to take over

be fun but what name are we conquring them under
got to be a cool one but puts fear into those that hear we are came to take over
Greater Antipodia?

Indeed. American and British forces at Bastogne, Leonidas and his Three Hundred, General Washington and the Continental Army and Continental Marines, etc... Despite what some think, most soldiers are truly good people. My brother, my father, my grandfather on my mother's side, and many more in my family served and are serving well in the American military.

~ Romandeos.

Why is everybody automatically assuming that whenever soldiers are mentioned, it's about US soldiers?

Both my grandfathers were soldiers in the Wehrmacht, and neither of them is a good person by any standards whatsoever.

*shakes head*

Which part of the Whermacht? There were five components I think. Army, Navy, AF, Waffen SS and later The militia...and what did they do? If they were grunts or Waffen SS you could understand why they were rotten people.

*shakes head*

Which part of the Whermacht? There were five components I think. Army, Navy, AF, Waffen SS and later The militia...and what did they do? If they were grunts or Waffen SS you could understand why they were rotten people.

One was Waffen SS, the other one regular army. And they were/still are rotten people, unless of course they completely changed character once they got into uniform....

Im not going to read through all of post so maybe it is already mentioned that brave by one standards can be considered suicidial by other standards. And if we don't draw any line between them then bravest are those who go to certain death on their own will.

Waffen SS was brutal. You had to be young dumb and easily brainwashed, then you got tortured for a while for basic training, then you got sent to a real hellhole where you were more likely to die along with everyone you knew than to survive even with a wound. It was like the US marines x 1000. He was prolly an asshole going in, and when he got out he had some real issues. As for you other gramp, well, the Lehr wasn't easy either. There weren't many German soldiers that came out of that war whole of mind or body...

Not saying you should forgive them, but if there is a hell, they went through it. The shit I went through was nothing compared to what they dealt with...

I thought little bit about in and Im now quite sure that most impressive bravery what I know is Carthagians at 3rd Punic War. They were merchant nation which didn't have any realistic chance for victory againt strongest military power in the world and still city of 700,000 people decided to make last stand. That was impressive bravery. It wasn't some small group of well trained soldiers, it was practically full nation that had never been very famous warriors or religious fanatics, but still decided to fight in hopeless situation.

Some of the (italian) bravest:

.The italian scuba sailors who placed explosive charges in WW2 on British warships moored at Tripoli (iirc).
.The italian alpini of "Julia", "Cuneense" and "Orobica" divisions at Nikolajevka (WW2), who fought against an overwhelming armoured CCCP force while the Wehrmacht surrendered everywhere... and won! (as stated by CCCP war bullettins - the alpini are the only unbeaten invasion force in soviet land)
.The italian infantry in WW1 - as stated by British liaison officers.
.The italian "Acqui" infantry division at Cefalonia, Greece in WW2 who refused to surrender to the overwhelming german forces after the italian king switched alliances from Axis to Allies - most killed in action, some deported to extermination camps.
.The italian partisans (1943-45) fighting on the Alps, the Appennines and in northern Italy against fascists, SS and regular german troops.
.The italian alpini (again!) in Lebanon on UN mission in 1982
.The italian paratroopers of the "Folgore" division at El-Alamein (WW2), who fought and resisted days (without tanks, anti-tank weapons, artillery or air support) against the British armoured forces in the Al-Qattara area.

Olmedreca;12223463']...Carthagians at 3rd Punic War... It wasn't some small group of well trained soldiers, it was practically full nation that had never been very famous warriors...

...aren't you forgetting Hannibal?

No im not forgetting him but Hannibal had realistic chance of victory. Carthage in 3rd Punic war didn't have any real chance for victory, and they were merchant nation, but still they decided to fight.

I don't thin Khannibal really had a chance. THe romans just had to many people. Kind of like the Germans and Russians in WWII.

If other Carthagian leaders would had managed to beat Romans out from Spain, then Carthage could had reinforced Hannibal in Italy and possibly also direct attack on Rome itsself could had became an option.

Not saying you should forgive them, but if there is a hell, they went through it. The shit I went through was nothing compared to what they dealt with...

From talks with them, they actually seemed to enjoy it to some extend. Especially the one who was Waffen SS.
Needless to say, they both long for "the good old days"....

i'd be inclined to say the so called picts. whatever they may have actualy called themselves.

in a day when going to war at all ment you'd probably die of tetnus, no matter who'se 'side' won, these guys kicked rome's well armed and armoured butt, with pointed sticks and wearing nothing but blue paint.

another example of course would have to be the zulu, who faced hot lead, with neither steel blades nor balistic fire power of their own. faced and prevailed, though there were pretty high casualty counts on both sides.

=^^=
.../\...

Olmedreca;12223490']No im not forgetting him but Hannibal had realistic chance of victory. Carthage in 3rd Punic war didn't have any real chance for victory, and they were merchant nation, but still they decided to fight.

I still don't think that they "decided" to fight. The Romans didn't leave them any choice - they were out for massacre and destruction that time. Carthago delenda est, etc.

Olmedreca;12223504']If other Carthagian leaders would had managed to beat Romans out from Spain, then Carthage could had reinforced Hannibal in Italy and possibly also direct attack on Rome itsself could had became an option.

Also Hannibal was too much of an idiot, wasting time after his great victory at Cannae, when he should have struck the final blow on Roma. He let the Romans time to regroup, and allowed the Cunctator to harass his logistics.

i'd be inclined to say the so called picts. whatever they may have actualy called themselves.

in a day when going to war at all ment you'd probably die of tetnus, no matter who'se 'side' won, these guys kicked rome's well armed and armoured butt, with pointed sticks and wearing nothing but blue paint.

another example of course would have to be the zulu, who faced hot lead, with neither steel blades nor balistic fire power of their own. faced and prevailed, though there were pretty high casualty counts on both sides.

=^^=
.../\...

Also Suetonius's Romans against the Briton uprising. Outnumbered by at least 20:1 .

I still don't think that they "decided" to fight. The Romans didn't leave them any choice - they were out for massacre and destruction that time. Carthago delenda est, etc.

Carthagians were given an option to leave their city and build new one at inland. Of course that would had been huge blow to them as tradeing nation but still people usually don't choose certain death then there is any alternative.

My Great-grandfather was a DCM and a Knight of the Order of the Cross of St George [3rd class] so by british and russian standards he was kinda brave, but in his eyes he thought it was the conscientious objectors who faced being thrown in a pit and shot for their convictions , or the miner who returned down the mine after a cave -in , were braver than he could ever be.

as for Thermopylae, I never remembered General Schwarzkopf ever mention what the spartan's greatest strength on the battlefield was...

they still oppose gays in the military and yet it was a "bunch of hair grooming pinko bum-loving queers" who held back the persians!!!

but saying that these guys were soldiers - they fought because that's who they were.

Anyone who has read Thucydides will remember the Melian dialogue - The Athenians try and bully the Melians into submission - they command them to join their forces and betray their friends or they will die.

The Melians decide that they will rather sacrifice their lives than give up their virtue,honour and integrity...

I think bravery is a highly personal issue. something we can't really judge from the outside looking in.

Look at women - they have leg waxing and caesarian sections???

The Wehrmacht soldiers weren't all bad people. They fought for their country.

Have the Finns been mentioned yet? Their great achievement in the Winter War against the red beasts is amazing. Fragments of a film about the winter war on you-tube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpnhURuGeuo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozgqNJOUImM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQXi04jKdmc

I'd go for these blokes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/39th_%28Militia%29_Battalion) in this campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokoda_Track_campaign).

Waffen SS was brutal. You had to be young dumb and easily brainwashed, then you got tortured for a while for basic training, then you got sent to a real hellhole where you were more likely to die along with everyone you knew than to survive even with a wound. It was like the US marines x 1000. He was prolly an asshole going in, and when he got out he had some real issues. As for you other gramp, well, the Lehr wasn't easy either. There weren't many German soldiers that came out of that war whole of mind or body...

Not saying you should forgive them, but if there is a hell, they went through it. The shit I went through was nothing compared to what they dealt with...
Especially when they are Officers.

The SS one was an Officer wasn't he Cabra?
*shakes head*

Which part of the Whermacht? There were five components I think. Army, Navy, AF, Waffen SS and later The militia...and what did they do? If they were grunts or Waffen SS you could understand why they were rotten people.
Grunts?
I hope you are not implying the glorious Infantry are rotten people just for being Infantry.
Explain please.

[QUOTE=Nationalist Sozy;12223776]
Have the Finns been mentioned yet? Their great achievement in the Winter War against the red beasts is amazing.QUOTE]

Red beasts... uh? Ok, I read your nick... :b

Anyway, Finnland not only fought bravely against the numerically overwhelming (although lacking in winter equipment) Soviet invasion troops, they also, very intelligently, refused to support the nazi beasts' invasion of CCCP territory. They halted their counterattack at the previous Finno-Soviet border, and ensured their survival. Had they invaded CCCP, the Red Army would have blasted through Finnland in 1944 and laid waste of the country. So bully for Finnland, the only Axis-aligned country in WW2 who didn't partake in war crimes and wanton massacres of civilians!

Have the Finns been mentioned yet? Their great achievement in the Winter War against the red beasts is amazing.

Red beasts... uh? Ok, I read your nick... :b

Anyway, Finnland not only fought bravely against the numerically overwhelming (although lacking in winter equipment) Soviet invasion troops, they also, very intelligently, refused to support the nazi beasts' invasion of CCCP territory. They halted their counterattack at the previous Finno-Soviet border, and ensured their survival. Had they invaded CCCP, the Red Army would have blasted through Finnland in 1944 and laid waste of the country. So bully for Finnland, the only Axis-aligned country in WW2 who didn't partake in war crimes and wanton massacres of civilians!
Untrue, If Finnland had have pushed on Leningrad would surely have fallen and the Germans would have been victorious.

In fact there were occasions where Finnish camps would have field synagogues. Not all allies declared war on Finland either. The USA didn't as far as I know.

Finland, like Eastern Europe, found themselves in the terrible situation where the allies found an ally in the USSR.

It is a shame that the allies didn't re-mobilize the wehrmacht and push through Eastern Europe to show the USSR their borders.

They also refused to a second time. When our brothers and sisters in Hungary were betrayed by the rest of Europe when the coward reds plundered their country in 1956.

I'd go for these blokes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/39th_%28Militia%29_Battalion) in this campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokoda_Track_campaign).
Absolutely, if you've seen the recent movie or read books, journals etc on these men, you would know the hell they went through to protect our frontier, fact is, if they had failed Australia would have been invaded.


Also I think theres a pension especially concerning the SS Gestapo under Heydrich, to see them as cynics, as people who killed for the empowering feeling of it. I think this is plainly false, as these men, particularly the officers, did what they did because they believed what they were doing was right, and were told as much from everyone that mattered to them as far as it was concerned. The dangerous delusions of Nazism fed to these men inevitably brought down what they were fighting for.

I also concerning the Wehrmacht that there is a tendency to confuse them with the SS, who were policemen, and to think of them all as evil killers. In war it's kill or be killed, and in the heat of battle people die. I draw a big line from that to digging and trench, filling it with working age Czechs, Poles, Jews or Communists, and massacring them. And it should be realized the Wehrmacht didn't really do that, on the Eastern Front the armies had SS detachments that 'dealt' with POWs etc.

Waffen SS was brutal. You had to be young dumb and easily brainwashed,...

little clarification: its mainly true about German volunteers. But there were also foreign volunteers and even foreign conscripts, btw, at the end of war 60% of Waffen-SS troops were non-German.

After the 'Nastiest' thread lets look at some of the best traits of a trained soldier

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1247706,00.html

We can debate the rights and wrongs of them being there, but wow, these guys rock!

Lets not forget the raid at Cabanatuan by the US Rangers of the 6th Army. It's still the most successful raid ever performed. If I had to pick though, I would have to agree with all you said the Spartins, particularly the ones who fought at Thermopolis.

But I think all persons in the military deserve the title as brave, regaurdless if they see combat or not. Because not everyone has what it takes to serve their country in such a way, especially during a time of war. More so considering the pay that they recieve too.

whether or not "the universal solder really is to blame" WASN'T, that i can see, the origeonaly intended subject of this thread.

whatever the moral issues of the individual person in a military organization, it is the priorities each of us live by, added up togather, that create the markets and incentives for politicians and industry, and it is these in turn, that cut a solder's orders.

the question was, what military orginization or orginizations, primarily nations, or other societies, have been defended/offended, by the ballziest, be they idiots, bastards, or poor chumps who didn't have a hell of a lot of other choice in life.

nor was the scope of history limited to the current milinea nor the previous century.

a simple question. the other question may be deeper, and more important, or not. personaly, i don't believe the morality of the grunt on the ground, or lack of it, has a hell of a lot to do, with the decision of politicians to make war on each other's nations or other targeted populations.

so i'll repeat my origeonal answer, and that would have to be picts and zulu's, although i've seen several others who deserve an honorable mention.

=^^=
.../\...

Anyone going over the top in WWI. Could also qualify for the most foolish.

Bravest soldiers in history??

The Spartans, Thespians, and their allies at Thermopylae.

[/thread]

I concur.

In no particular order...

Spartans, Waffen-SS (particularly the Charlegmagne and Wallonie units), Foreign Legion, Viet Minh and Viet Cong, the Afghans, the Fuzzy-Wuzzies, the Zulus, the Paras, the Iraqis who stood and died in two wars against the US, the Turks and ANZACS in WWI, the Palestinians, the Jordanian Arab Legion/Army... the Ghurkas... British 6th Army in Burma...

Pretty much every conflict has its insanely brave soldiers and units.

Personally I think that the Spartans and Thebans at Thermopylae, and the Waffen-SS from '43-'45 take the top spot because both knew they were doomed and fought on anyway.

I concur.

I believe they meant "Thebans". Thespians are actors.

Just trying to show you that some Americans are educated.

I DON'T BELIEVE YOU

:p

I believe they meant "Thebans". Thespians are actors.

Oh well done. Where some simply accept that, despite a mistake, the meaning remains clear, others feel obliged to further the cause of the pedant.

Oh well done. Where some simply accept that, despite a mistake, the meaning remains clear, others feel obliged to further the cause of the pedant.

Just trying to show you that some Americans are educated.

Just trying to show you that some Americans are educated.

No need. At least the US actually emphasises academic subjects, unlike the UK:(

the bravest soldier?

easy.
its the one that knows he's not going to survive this battle, yet stays and fights.