Soldiers: Heroes, murderers or fools?

Remove all ads!

Drerw, I don't often agree with you, but this time I do. You hit the nail right on the head. Not many sane people go out looking for warfare, but if it comes to them they'd better be ready or be prepared to lose their rights they are so proud of.

 

It wouldnt be nescessary if no one thought like you do. Everyone who fight is of the opinion that they fight for their rights, even the minions of what you label as a psychotic despot. It is just like the build up to WW1, no one wanted to fight but everyone kept building up their armies just because everyone else did and then you had all those weapons lying around and all it took was a single shot to set it all off.

Wouldnt it be an idea to not be one of those people just waiting for the next war and actually try to make there not be a war. Also I do find it funny that it is the Americans who are speaking the most about being invaded and fighting power hungry despots, who do you expect is going to invade you? You spend more money on your military than the rest of the world combined and have a largish pool of water between you and any other biggish military unless you are scared of the Canucks and Mexicans.

 

Ah. So, when Hitler annexed Austria, we were right to just let him have it. When he claimed the Sudetanland, we were right to just give it to him. When he invaded and occupied Czechoslovakia, we were right just to let him have it. When he invaded Poland, we should have just let him have it, rather than declare war. When the Soviets invaded Poland and the Germans and Soviets split the nation up, we should have just left it alone. When the Soviets then attacked Finland, we should have just let them have it instead of kicking them out of the League of Nations. When Germany invaded Denmark and Norway to secure shipments of iron-ore from Sweden, we should have just let them have it. After all, maybe he would have left after he got the iron-ore, right? It's not like he would have taken those countries over after he got his iron (actually, that's exactly what he did). When Hitler invaded France, the Netherlands, and Belgium, we should have just let him keep those nations, too. When he began his air superiority campaign on Britain, we should have just let him take over there, too, right? After all, Hitler wasn't really a psychotic despot. That's just propaganda.

Show me one time that I have supported the US intervention policy. Show me one time I have done this. Supporting the maintenance of a standing army and supporting the invasion of Iraq are not the same thing. Hell, it's not like I wasn't signing petitions or participating in protests or anything during the run-up to Iraq*.

* For your information, I did both.

 

My , both on what has been said and the topic subject.

But that raises the question - Do you have the moral strength to turn around and say 'No, regardless of what you do to me, I WILL NOT fight?.

With regards to the poll itself...


Something to remember is that it is the victors that define 'a hero'.

If WWII had gone the other way then it is possible that the concentration camp guards would have been considered heroes for their efforts in rectifying the 'Jewish Question'. The Nuremberg trials themselved were heavily skewed towards the Allied pov rather than international law. Admiral Doenitz was initially tried for ordering unrestricted submarine warfare as well as for ordering Uboats not to pick up survivors. These were quashed when it was pointed out that the Allies had operated their submarines in an identical fashion.
This too is the same for murderers. No doubt the coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq would consider anyone who kills a member of the coalition to be a 'murderer'. The other side would consider them a 'soldier'.

Certainly I would be very tempted to join the armed forces upon graduation, were it not for the simple fact that my definition of a 'just war' and that of the politicians seems to differ so strongly.

The Iraq invasion was sold to the UK as removing WMDs from Saddam's control. My view then, as now was simple. Saddam allegedly had chemical and biological weapons. Other countries, that were just as belligerent have nuclear weapons as well and yet there was absolutely NO attempts made to implement any sanctions/invasions against those countries - Why? Mainly, or at least it seems to me, because Iraq had oil.

This suggests therefore that the primary driving force for the war was money, which if it is a valid reason to invade another country and kill its citizens must surely be a valid reason to kill members of your own country?

Saying all this I certainly am not against the armed forces or war as a whole within the right circumstances. Given my course I am probably more aware than most of a non-military background of the horrific injuries that modern military hardware can inflict, but even so there are some circumstances that do justify war and the killing. Any culture that considers human life to be meaningless, considers law to be something to be sidestepped/ignored and considers power to be the only requirement for an action must be stopped, regardless of whether their excuse is 'Religion', 'National Security' or 'Racial Purity'


Phew - Rant over

 

More like the moral strength to turn around and say, "No, regardless of what you do to me, I WILL NOT fight! Although my family will lose their home, their car, and everything else it has spent years working and saving for to secure an education and a good future for the children, who will definitely grow up without a father when I go to prison while there's only a chance they will grow up without a father if I go to war (especially since only a small fraction of our soldiers will actually be on the front lines and see combat), I WILL NOT FIGHT!" Accepting the consequences for yourself is one thing. When you have a family to support, it gets more complicated. You can't draft 18-22 year olds forever (and the "young and dumb" are, sadly, far more likely than not to trust their government). Lots of the people who are older than that have families of their own to worry about.

 

You are aware that I'm in that age bracket aren't you?

Certainly my views may change if I have children, but certainly at the moment it is extremely simple.

Would I rather my children grew up with out a father... or in a world where its ok for government to impose its will solely based on its greater military power, ok for them to say you will think and act in the way we require and if you don't agree then you will be penalised accordingly? I would much rather my children learn that sometimes freedom and morality do require sacrifices than them to learn that it is ok to suppress personal opinions as long as your government requires it.

I am very aware though that I don't have children and therefore my views can take the less emotional (or more heartless ) view.

 

Looking at your WWI analogy, wasn't that Belgium? That didn't work so well for them...

Shut up, you'll blow the whole plan! We import Canadian Beer, and when they get drunk (because we actually put alcohol in it) on Superbowl Sunday, we invade. 47 of the 48 mainland states are neutralized (and Utah would never fight on a Sunday). Meanwhile our allies, the Mexicans have their carefully placed fifth columns ready to take key southern objectives...

But that falls under the category of political incompetence. It does, on some level make one of Joacqin's points. The biggest dog in the yars was armed to the teeth and really iritable when Iraq thumbed their nose at them. Yes, something needed to be done, but the invasion was the wrong thing (not that there has to be a right thing either)...

 

I was borrowing a cliche. I did put it in quotes, you know. It is a simple fact that no one comes out of the womb hard bitten and cynical. That takes time, which is why the young tend to be more apt to trust their government.

When Mohammad Ali refused to serve in Vietnam, it didn't stop the war. The only thing his refusal accomplished was the (temporary) imprisonment of the greatest boxer who ever lived...and, unlike Joe six-pack, his family didn't suffer financially while he was in prison. If I, on the other hand, were sent to prison, my family would be homeless within a year. If I died in a war, though, they'd get veterans benefits, SSI until my youngest turns 18, and up to 400K from SGLI (most military members take the maximum benefit). They'd be better off financially than they are with me alive.

 

Drew has it. Acts of defiance look good on movies and under the proper circumstances I suppose they can change the world but in reality they tend to hurt the one making the grand statement -- and his family.

Joaqin, the world you imagine is beautiful but it will never, ever happen. You're cynical enough to recognize that, aren't you? All it takes is one person who does not follow the rules for the system to break down -- and we have a lot of rulebreakers in the modern world.

 

Do you think that is a good thing then Drew? That you have the choice of fighting a war you dont believe in or go to prison? I dont think you do and shouldnt we at least strive to change it? Starting with our own attitudes. That ties in to what LKD is saying as well, I actually do not think it is as impossible as you think. Most if not all conflicts are based in not knowing your enemy, in not trusting him, in thinking of him as alien, strange even unknowable. In todays day and age we do have a pretty good idea about what is going on in the rest of the world. We are fairly sure that they do not eat babies in Iran or America. If people start standing up and saying that I will not be a pawn for the power, that I will not go out and kill or be killed fighting people more similar to me than the men who want to send me out to war. Everything starts with attitudes and if we arent even willing change that then the cycle will never be broken.

We are busy erasing the borders on this planet even if some countries are fiercely trying to hold the development back but it will not stop. Instant global communication is here, we can easily have personal relations with people from all over the world. We know that they are not evil, well at least we know if we arent complete bigots. How can you then justify taking up arms to protect the political and financial interests of your leaders? If we in the "enlightened west" do not take the first steps who will? There is no real breeding ground for an "evil empire" anymore. In the places where the people are ignorant and desperate enough for it to be possible there isnt enough money or power. Even a completely united Arabia or Africa wouldnt pose a serious military threat to the west and if it would be about to happen we would see it from a mile away. What is more likely would be that the US or even the EU turns into such a place but if we stay awake I doubt that as well. We have China and they are opening, slowly but surely and have never really shown any expansionstic desires. The world is interwoven and unless we all simultanously descent into mindless nationalism and xenophobia we can overcome this tribal instinct to bash our neighbours on the head with a big club.

We are all people, no matter where we are born and if we, enlightened and educated people can't accept that then I guess you guys are right and we will continue to view our fellow men with suspicion and distrust and we sure as hell cant expect the people who lack the gifts we have to trust us.

 

The obvious solution is to stop being so misogynistic and let your wife* out of the kitchen so she can get a job. Jerkface.

*Are you even married? I have no idea.
[/blatant trolling]

Not so. Human behavior is malleable. If a bunch of damn primates can go from 'Me Thog. Thog strong. Thog take. Thog kill!' to 'What's so funny about peace love and understanding?" then so can we.

Not that I think it's likely. I simply feel the notion that a kinder, gentler world could never exist is both mistaken and a self-fulfilling prophecy. And probably not in keeping with Jesus' teachings (but that's a completely different thread).

 

Absolutely, but choosing not to wear a uniform isn't going to change a thing. Change is made at the ballot box, in the debate hall, through petitioning, and through protesting. Military members aren't forbidden from petitioning the government or participating in their democracy. Military members have protested the Iraq war in droves without repercussion. They've written books, attended protests, and they've given interviews to the press.

The existence of the military isn't the problem. The election - and the reelection, in particular- of politicians who value neither peace nor diplomacy is the problem. The answer to the problem isn't taking off or refusing to put on the uniform. The problem is that the people are willing to elect leaders who will mis-use the military. When I (and the thousands upon thousands of others who fled the intelligence community and, eventually, the rest of the military in droves) took off my uniform, it didn't change anything. It didn't change anything because the problem wasn't my uniform. The problem was the war-monger in the Oval office, a media too lazy to bother to report on the actual facts during the run-up to the Iraq war, and an American people too complacent to actually hold anyone accountable for it.

9 years and counting, 2 kids, and one vasectomy...

 

Statistically, many couples have two incomes as both man and wife work outside the home. It takes both incomes to maintain the standard of living that the family would be accustomed to. If the Husband (or wife for that matter) were incarcerated, and his income stopped suddenly, it is unlikely that one income by itself could maintain the bills that would be present. It's likely that the Mortgage would become too much for the one income by itself...