Re: Soldiers are Heroes...

[wfooshee]

The educational comparison was to "armies" of many other countries, where kids are removed from their homes just because they have a hand that fits a gun, they're told which end of it to point where, and sent into battle, probably to kill as many of another tribe or another culture as they can find. And yes, I know full well that the holder of a high school diploma can be almost totally illiterate.

But we don't do it that way here. Nor in Canada. Service men and women, by a vast majority, are where they are because they expect a return on their time. In training, in benefits, in a job future after their military obligation is met.

My son is career army. His wife entered the army 6 months behind him, in the same program, medical lab technician. They met in school, in San Antonio. She returned to civilian life after serving the time she signed for and works in the same field, sometimes for the same poeple, at a quite handsome civilian pay grade. Another benefit is she can finish college on the army if she so decides. So. She got trained, he got trained, she's in a highly specialized well-paying civilian job, he's finished college on the army and is a career officer now, with an unlimited future.

This is not as atypical as many would have you believe.

Yes, there are morons and idiots in the military. Where can you be and not find morons and idiots? There are people there who went there because no one else would have them. Why would you have military police and courts-martial if such didn't exist? There are politicians and butt-kissers in the military, and there are folks who'll get through it by doing just exactly what is required of them and no more. You have to expect in any large enough group some similarities to the larger population they were drawn from. Nevertheless, if you looked at the population really really hard, you'd see a vast majority of them are dedicated to their service and willing to get the job done, whatever it takes. And the job isn't killing, in and of itself. Sometimes killing is part of it, but it's not the end-all be-all of military life.

As for attacks on American soil, please don't tell me you've forgotten the sniper and the "berserk" army officer.

 

[Northstar]

Those who are in the Military and Gov't have no remorse for what they do and will continue to do so.

This is the part I have the biggest issue with. A rather high amount of soldiers are returning from Iraq with a condition called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. In some cases if it doesn't get treated it can lead to suicide. Obviously if they had no remorse they wouldn't be going "insane" after their experience in Iraq. If you add in the other cases where soldiers come back and have other issues the number's would probably be in the majority.

Here is an article about soldiers with PTSD, it's from 2004, but if anything I would guess the numbers are going up.

 

[McLaren]

I hate soldiers for the fact that the Gov't, any Gov't have decided that if they want something they will organise a group and train them to kill just for oil or gold and other materials that have been here a far lot longer than Human Beings. Saying that I dont quite like the Gov't, any Gov't. They all are killers as anyone else who is in the Gov't or the Military. I know you said that you do not believe in God, but the ones who do should know that it is wrong to kill. Humans are here to get on and achieve great things together. Those who are in the Military and Gov't have no remorse for what they do and will continue to do so. But hey....there's nothing anyone can do about it because us normal folk dont have Weapons of mass destruction like the powerful government's across the world ,so we have already lost.

I'm glad you don't live in the US. I'd hate to think that my father had ever risked over 25 years of his life in the Air Force as a Master Sgt. fighting just so you could spew this filth.

 

[LizMcQueen]

Soldiers = Heroes, Why?

A hero is a person who performs extraordinary deeds for the benefit of others.
A person becomes a hero to perform a remarkable feat and worthy of praise, for example to save someone from certain death.

There are very few soldiers who are heroes and there are much more people (not military) who become heroes every day.
Be a soldier is a job, like a policeman, they have a salary for their services, so to become heroes they have to do something very very special.

I'm glad you don't live in the US. I'd hate to think that my father had ever risked over 25 years of his life in the Air Force as a Master Sgt. fighting just so you could spew this filth.

Your father didn't risk his life for twenty five years, he was military twenty five years, it's different, be military not mean to be in constant danger.
I don't hate soldiers, but I hate soldiers who think they are better than civilian, always with the army uniform on the street or in shopping malls.

By the way, my half brother is second lieutenant in the marines.

 

[wfooshee]

I don't hate soldiers, but I hate soldiers who think they are better than civilian, always with the army uniform on the street or in shopping malls.

Many times soldiers, especially of certain ranks, aren't permitted to wear civilian clothes. They're not out there in uniform trying to say, "Look at us, we're cooler than you," they're out there on one of their rare chances to get out of Army life and back into the world for an afternoon.

 

[Jim Prower]

I think the thread title could easily be answered with the simple definition of "hero" - someone who goes above and beyond the call of duty, who risks him or her self, to defend or protect another person. and there are, indeed plenty of cases of this in the Military...but not all of them are actual heroes. I think wfooshee has probably the best answer to this, so I'll refer you to post #31.

However, I think there's an underlying tone of "What is the purpose of War?" here. I believe it's thus - The enemy has a weapon. They want to use it. Your job is to make certain they do not use it, or if they do, they use it against you, instead of people whom cannot defend themselves. At least, this is how it should be. Again, humanity is imperfect, and there are some that go to war for unjust reasons, but, overwhelmingly, as a professional soldier, your job is to disarm, not to kill.

 

[nk4e]

I hate soldiers for the fact that the Gov't, any Gov't have decided that if they want something they will organise a group and train them to kill just for oil or gold and other materials that have been here a far lot longer than Human Beings.

I think that reasons is really getting old..

 

[ExigeEvan]

Your father didn't risk his life for twenty five years, he was military twenty five years, it's different, be military not mean to be in constant danger.
I don't hate soldiers, but I hate soldiers who think they are better than civilian, always with the army uniform on the street or in shopping malls.

By the way, my half brother is second lieutenant in the marines.

Why assume that a person in military uniform thinks they're better than everyone else?

And hell, why can people parade football and rugby shirts around to show their pride in their team, but someone can't wear their uniform to show their pride in their job?

Yes my friend has just passed through training, and he sums up people in the military quite well

"There's just as many c**** in the army as there were in school, they only difference is these c**** decided that somehow, somewhere they could try and make a difference, and if nothing else it'd make their parents proud."

My point is, just because they are wearing uniform, don't think they are any more arrogant than the chav outside the offy.

 

[LizMcQueen]

Many times soldiers, especially of certain ranks, aren't permitted to wear civilian clothes. They're not out there in uniform trying to say, "Look at us, we're cooler than you," they're out there on one of their rare chances to get out of Army life and back into the world for an afternoon.

Why assume that a person in military uniform thinks they're better than everyone else? My point is, just because they are wearing uniform, don't think they are any more arrogant than the chav outside the offy.

I know, but I don't say in that situation, I say, for example guys returning to their cities, or in a bar when they don't have to wear uniform, I've seen it (also I know they are only a few).

 

[ExigeEvan]

I know, but I don't say in that situation, I say, for example guys returning to their cities, or in a bar when they don't have to wear uniform, I've seen it (also I know they are only a few).

Which situation? I didn't give a particular one, I was purely talking day-to-day.

 

[lpb-nissan-gt-r]

Well although I may not be very educated on these things I believe anyone who dies at war although they may be there for financial reasons there are still making the world a better place, just to share a story I was revising this week in the library when me and some friends walked out to see the whole town had frozen still in respect to a young soilder who was killed, and my friend is currently on the waiting list to train in the army.

 

[LizMcQueen]

Which situation? I didn't give a particular one, I was purely talking day-to-day.

I'm sorry, I quoted your message and then I replied to wfooshee

 

[PF]

I believe anyone who dies at war although they may be there for financial reasons there are still making the world a better place

Wow. Read that sentence again, mate.

 

[McLaren]

Your father didn't risk his life for twenty five years, he was military twenty five years, it's different, be military not mean to be in constant danger.
I don't hate soldiers, but I hate soldiers who think they are better than civilian, always with the army uniform on the street or in shopping malls.

By the way, my half brother is second lieutenant in the marines.

Regardless of when he was risking his life or not, he fought just as his father did before him, so people like SpawnBlack could come up with moronic allegations.

I'm just glad my father never read his post. He spent enough time when he returned home wondering why he even bothered fighting when he heard of people who thought the military was just after blood.

 

[Ardius]

However, I think there's an underlying tone of "What is the purpose of War?" here. I believe it's thus - The enemy has a weapon. They want to use it. Your job is to make certain they do not use it, or if they do, they use it against you, instead of people whom cannot defend themselves. At least, this is how it should be. Again, humanity is imperfect, and there are some that go to war for unjust reasons, but, overwhelmingly, as a professional soldier, your job is to disarm, not to kill.

Hmm, I don't agree with this. This would be the "happy" way of explaining the point of armies. Or at least, a rather focused definition based on the current events.
But at the end of the day, a soldier's job is to kill, like it or not. They are trained for this specific job and though some may never actually kill anyone, it is indeed in their job description.

War is not always about defending something either, usually it is a conflict of interest or a claim of ownership.
What are "unjust reasons"? Are these not just the same kind of reasons that both sides give to their own people? Perhaps Germany was unjust to invade countries to unite Germanic people, but surely to them it was perfectly just?

Anyway, its not all about defending and disarming. It is in fact also about invading, killing and even the destruction of countries and governments. The purpose of war is to act as a natural way to sort out disagreements, when neither side can agree, then there is only one percieved way to decide who is right.

As for the heroes debate, I agree though I think the issue has been going on for many centuries in fact.

 

[ExigeEvan]

But at the end of the day, a soldier's job is to kill, like it or not. They are trained for this specific job and though some may never actually kill anyone, it is indeed in their job description.

Except that's not true at all in a 21st Century army.

There are soldiers who create communication networks, for their own army and for other societies, there are engineers who create safe drinking water and defend villages from floods, there are doctors, nurses, medics who deal with far more than those injured in war and fighting.

To say a soldiers job is to kill, to say it is even in their job description for many, is largely incorrect.

 

[Ardius]

Except that's not true at all in a 21st Century army.

There are soldiers who create communication networks, for their own army and for other societies, there are engineers who create safe drinking water and defend villages from floods, there are doctors, nurses, medics who deal with far more than those injured in war and fighting.

To say a soldiers job is to kill, to say it is even in their job description for many, is largely incorrect.

Oh, so all the tactics, warfare and battle training is for playing Call of Duty at the weekend then?
What you have just described is 1 element of what an invading force should aim to do, but it is not the only purpose of a soldier.

I will agree that the role of a soldier has changed due to the nature of warfare these days. However, to say that their job isn't to kill is..well, I don't even understand how that even works.

It should also be pointed out that despite these other roles for "soldiers" (as a generic term you seem to be using) still require the training and use of weapons.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Oh, so all the tactics, warfare and battle training is for playing Call of Duty at the weekend then?
What you have just described is 1 element of what an invading force should aim to do, but it is not the only purpose of a soldier.

I will agree that the role of a soldier has changed due to the nature of warfare these days. However, to say that their job isn't to kill is..well, I don't even understand how that even works.

I'll accept that they are trained to kill. All members of the armed forces go through a basic training scenario and are required to be able to operate a rifle.

But again, to say their job is to kill is a huge ignorance of how the modern army operates. There are countless positions you can enter in any army where you will never, ever face the enemy or even point a gun in anger.

 

[Ardius]

Is is their primary job though...maybe not their personal job or "sub-job" but as a member of a military force they are part of an organisiation which is used for offensive force which involves killing. When you sign up to the army, you also sign up to potentially involve yourself in such acts. Now, you can of course end up in a job where you never point a gun but you would still be trained to do so in the scenario where you may indeed need it. From a lowly IT technician to an infantryman posted somewhere like the Fawklands, they may never see action. But they are trained in case they do, because as a member of the military, they can and are called upon in times of war to effectively kill people when necessary. Just as much as they are also the first target (ideally) when under attack before civilians.
I guess I'm really the one using the generic "Soldier" term here . When I refer to soldiers, I refer to the military in a human sense rather than a specific role for each specific person. I'm really referring to your average infantryman basically.

But to get back to my original point - to say the army, soldiers or the military are purely "defensive" is naïve. Their primary purpose is offensive, and although they also are a defensive measure, their nature is offensive. No matter how many other jobs you give them, they still train to use weapons that kill at the end of the day.

 

[ExigeEvan]

I guess I'm really the one using the generic "Soldier" term here . When I refer to soldiers, I refer to the military in a human sense rather than a specific role for each specific person. I'm really referring to your average infantryman basically.

And that's where the disagreement stands. Gone are the days where everyman had a gun, and everyman stood on the front line.

But to get back to my original point - to say the army, soldiers or the military are purely "defensive" is naïve. Their primary purpose is offensive, and although they also are a defensive measure, their nature is offensive. No matter how many other jobs you give them, they still train to use weapons that kill at the end of the day.

Again, we'd have to agree on a definition.

To say they are offensive because they are trained to kill is in my opinion incorrect. An offensive force is one that can, and has been used to gain and hold ground.

A defence force, and many exist, is purely designed to defend the land it currently holds and calls home. Sweden was a classic case of this in cold-war, including have a tank that was designed purely for defensive purposes, the Stridsvagn 103.

 

[Ardius]

I think that element has always been in armies, after all, armies have always had chefs, engineers, messengers, etc. Usually these didn't get involved in the fighting yet they were part of the army. This is no different to your modern day medic or mechanic. There has always been a support element to armies that is not particularly offensive, but these are not the "soldiers" I'm referring to, these are the elements which sustain the offensive ability of an army.

As for the second point, well I guess thats a different argument entirely really, "when does an offensive weapon become defensive?" is the question, eh? I don't know my answer to that, it is a fine line. But the original quote I disagreed with was this:

Again, humanity is imperfect, and there are some that go to war for unjust reasons, but, overwhelmingly, as a professional soldier, your job is to disarm, not to kill.

A soldier's job will always involve killing. The rest of Jim's post came across as an idealistic view of the army being purely a defensive tool, which is not the case. Even for a country that only uses their army for defensive purposes currently or historically, that doesn't prevent them from using it offensively at another time.

With enough reason, you can easily turn a "defensive force" into an "invading force".

 

[nk4e]

But again, to say their job is to kill is a huge ignorance of how the modern army operates. There are countless positions you can enter in any army where you will never, ever face the enemy or even point a gun in anger.

Like how to make a parachute or to clean a ship ( wouldn't know if the Merchant Marine works as a military force).

 

[wfooshee]

With enough reason, you can easily turn a "defensive force" into an "invading force".

Not at the level of the soldier, you can't. That's a strategic directive that comes from political control at the highest levels.

But why is "invading force" a bad thing? Perhaps you would rather that the U.S. Army, along with the British Army, had not turned from defending England to invading Nazi-occupied Europe?

I wonder how Big Ben would look with an iron cross standing atop the tower, or swastika banners hanging under the clock faces?

As long as the "bad guys" are willing to kill to gain their objectives, you'd better have "good guys" willing to kill to prevent it.

And for those who say, "Killing is immoral. The Bible commands, 'Thou shalt not kill,'" I answer that within 2 pages of that commandment is the verse, "Whoever curses his father or mother shall be put to death," and in a later book the Isrealites are told to "not leave a single soul alive" in the cities of the lands God is giving them. In other words, "Kill 'em all!" Oh, yeah. . . . what was it David did to Goliath?

 

[Invictus321]

Hero = Sacrifice

 

[nk4e]

Nvm...

 

[Ardius]

Not at the level of the soldier, you can't. That's a strategic directive that comes from political control at the highest levels.

But why is "invading force" a bad thing? Perhaps you would rather that the U.S. Army, along with the British Army, had not turned from defending England to invading Nazi-occupied Europe?

I wonder how Big Ben would look with an iron cross standing atop the tower, or swastika banners hanging under the clock faces?

As long as the "bad guys" are willing to kill to gain their objectives, you'd better have "good guys" willing to kill to prevent it.

And for those who say, "Killing is immoral. The Bible commands, 'Thou shalt not kill,'" I answer that within 2 pages of that commandment is the verse, "Whoever curses his father or mother shall be put to death," and in a later book the Isrealites are told to "not leave a single soul alive" in the cities of the lands God is giving them. In other words, "Kill 'em all!" Oh, yeah. . . . what was it David did to Goliath?

Did you even read my posts and the discussion that just happened? Firstly, I wasn't referring to just soldiers with the defensive/offensive force thing, that was referring to Exige's comment about how an army can be a defensive tool and Jim's post which suggested armies are defensive only.

As for the rest, I never said an invading force was a bad thing

I would be careful using the Bible like that too. The Bible is not always to be taken literally and if we're not careful, this is going to spiral into a discussion on religion.

 

[wfooshee]

I did read your post and the way I read your post was kill=bad. The last sentence sounded like defense is OK, offense is not. That's what I addressed.

I wasn't using the Bible as a reference, I was arguing that it shouldn't be used as a reference by pointing out the strangeness of being commanded not to kill . . . unless it's people that are in your way.

My whole point is that many have posted here (not you specifically, but many) that military organizations are a Bad Thing, that they exist only to kill, invade, and pillage, they have no other purpose. I'm trying to point out how ludicrous that simple-minded point of view is. When it's necessary to kill or be killed, where do you want to end up?

 

[Ardius]

No, this was not what my view point is at all, and if you read the whole discussion I'd had with Exige, it should have been clear that I was referring to the army as an offensive tool - a weapon, regardless of how the people who control it use it. I was never implying that offensive is not ok, I was highlighting that contrary to what some here have said, armies are not just for defensive purposes. You have effectively been putting words in my mouth.
I even said:

What are "unjust reasons"? Are these not just the same kind of reasons that both sides give to their own people? Perhaps Germany was unjust to invade countries to unite Germanic people, but surely to them it was perfectly just?

Anyway, its not all about defending and disarming. It is in fact also about invading, killing and even the destruction of countries and governments. The purpose of war is to act as a natural way to sort out disagreements, when neither side can agree, then there is only one percieved way to decide who is right.

This is a slightly pro-war comment, in that I was saying that an "unjust war" is purely what the opposite side says to justify their actions/reactions.
Clearly, you must feel there is a negative aspect of armies, otherwise you would not have assumed I was of the opinion that offensive weapons are bad.

That last sentence was referring to how easily a change of government or a change of views can change the "defensive army" into the "offensive army". This was linking into what I was trying to say all along that armies, soldiers, military are a sword to wield. A sword is always a weapon regardless if its on the floor or in a man's hands. So using a sword defensively does not change it from being a weapon, it is always a weapon, the only thing that changes is the controller of the weapon.
Hence, an army is not "defensive". It can be used defensively, but the point of an army is not purely for defending.

As for my stance on killing, armies, war...it is something I consider daily. I've not come to a conclusion on whether it is good or bad, humanity has become so used to solving issues through violence that it sometimes seems there is no other way. But at the same time, how can another way work when it requires agreement from all sides?
There will always be a need for military forces, well into my lifetime I'm sure. Maybe one day we will finally not need them, but the reality is currently they are weapons and they are very much needed.

Please can we move away from the Bible though? And you are taking the words literally in it, this is the big mistake people make.

 

[Gil]

Oh, so all the tactics, warfare and battle training is for playing Call of Duty at the weekend then?
What you have just described is 1 element of what an invading force should aim to do, but it is not the only purpose of a soldier.

I will agree that the role of a soldier has changed due to the nature of warfare these days. However, to say that their job isn't to kill is..well, I don't even understand how that even works.

It should also be pointed out that despite these other roles for "soldiers" (as a generic term you seem to be using) still require the training and use of weapons.

I spent four years in the military, at a time when the world situation was as "interesting" as it is now. Only the focus was Lebanon.
I never killed anyone.
I have been involved in inserting special forces.
I was on a ship that shelled a beach.
But I've never personally had to lift a weapon in anger.
I was trained to use the M-14, 1911A1, and 2 different types of shotguns to repel boarders.
I was also trained as a fire-fighter.
The US military has not attacked anyone that has not first attacked us in well over 100 years.
Keep that in mind, when you call soldiers "killers".
Think of us as "re-educators".
In most cases, if you slap down a bully solidly enough they learn to leave you the hell alone.

 

[LizMcQueen]

The US military has not attacked anyone that has not first attacked us in well over 100 years.

right, but watching this I understand why some people hate USA, it was involved in many conflicts and in some cases United States supported dictators and collaborated in coup d'état.