Does anyone *really* have any respect for the modern day soldier?

[Yusuf Evans]

Whose lives exactly are the modern day soldiers saving in Iraq?

Considering that you are basing this entire thread, on the current war in Iraq, it is useless to even debate with you.

 

[stan1980]

My reasons for pointing out that some of us have loved ones in the forces was not sentimental, although thanks for assuming otherwise. My point was actually that those who know people in the armed forces are quite likely to disagree with you that they are all stupid, lazy drop-outs with no soul. And they'd be right. One of the brightest people I know served a term in Afghanistan. He is now working as a policeman in a squad which specialises in dealing with rape and sexual abuse in the London area. He is a deeply loving and compassionate man.

Frankly, I think you need to get off your high-horse, leave the arrogance at the door, and maybe spend a little time thinking before you barge in with your poorly-considered opinions, stan. You're not "telling it like it is". You're telling it like it is in your head, which is apparently very different. I don't like war. But I don't hold soldiers responsible for having to fight pointless ones. And I would never claim that everyone, or virtually everyone, in the armed forces, or in any other group, is like this or like that. I'd be setting myself up for a fall.

I'm really glad your friend is doing something far more worthwhile now. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't think all the people in the army are "drop-outs".

Anyway, moving on, what would you think of me, if I worked for an organised Mafia group, and my job was to follow orders from the top to "bump off" rival drug dealers, and now and again I might even take out members of the public by mistake. Would you have much respect for me? You'd probably think I was a bit of a lowlife, wouldn't you?

So tell me, what makes someone who works for the army any better? The only difference in the army is that their atrocities are ordered by a politician rather than a Mafia boss.

 

[cantata]

Anyway, moving on, what would you think of me, if I worked for an organised Mafia group, and my job was to follow orders from the top to "bump off" rival drug dealers, and now and again I might even take out members of the public by mistake. Would you have much respect for me? You'd probably think I was a bit of a lowlife, wouldn't you?

So tell me, what makes someone who works for the army any better? The only difference in the army is that their atrocities are ordered by a politician rather than a Mafia boss.

The difference, of course, is that unlike a Mafia gang, there may come a time when we really need an army. Like, y'know, natural disaster, firefighter strike, invasion...

Lovely as it would be for there to be a world in which armies weren't necessary, I'm afraid pacifism isn't possible unless everyone agrees with you.

 

[stan1980]

The difference, of course, is that unlike a Mafia gang, there may come a time when we really need an army. Like, y'know, natural disaster, firefighter strike, invasion...

That's great and everything, but who really has the moral high ground when person x is told to take out some drug dealers, and person y is told to get on a plane to Iraq to take out some Iraqis? They can both say "no, I wont do it", and they both might get into a bit of strife for it, but what actually makes that guy in the army who has gone to Iraq to kill the enemy, any better than the Mafia guy who has been sent to take out the drug dealers?

 

[Yusuf Evans]

So tell me, what makes someone who works for the army any better? The only difference in the army is that their atrocities are ordered by a politician rather than a Mafia boss.

The only difference between the mafia and the army, is your ability to spit out ignorance freely on a public forum; they've also given their lives in service, so you could freely protest your government.

I find it funny, that people like you with this much arrogance, belittle those who would rather serve their nation. Just because we're involved in a conflict you don't agree with, does not mean we are some cold blooded killers. It's sad to see someone like you, trying to inflate your ego, by post ignorance on an internet forum.

 

[stan1980]

According to jmersville, as well the German and Pol Pot´s soldiers were noble in that they were willing to lay down their lives.

The thing that seems to be easily forgotten here is that soldiers do not only are willing to lay down their lives but are also willing to end other persons´ lives - and these persons are usually not Pol Pot or Hitler, but other "noble" soldiers.

Good point. If a noble soldier takes out another noble soldier his nobleness is cancelled out, so none of them are noble anymore... that is an indisputable fact by the way.

 

[cantata]

That's great and everything, but who really has the moral high ground when person x is told to take out some drug dealers, and person y is told to get on a plane to Iraq to take out some Iraqis? They can both say "no, I wont do it", and they both might get into a bit of strife for it, but what actually makes that guy in the army who has gone to Iraq to kill the enemy, any better than the Mafia guy who has been sent to take out the drug dealers?

Well, for several reasons.
1. The Mafia guy is presumably in it for the cash, while the serviceperson may have all kinds of other motivations for having joined up. (They may be moral motivations that you disagree with, but I think most servicepeople have at least some motives which are not self-serving.)
2. The army has a number of duties, some of which its members may agree with and others with which they may not. Unfortunately, you can't choose the bits you want. You can't join the army with a get-out clause that says "I will only fight when Britain is directly at risk." That's just not the way it works. In a world where there are people who will use our scruples against us, we need to have an army presence of people who are potentially willing to follow any order. Just imagine if soldiers were allowed to choose which wars to fight in. We'd be easy pickings.

ETA: Yes, they could say no, and face court-marshal. But do you really think that most soldiers are in a position to positively say that they know better than the people giving the orders?

 

[stan1980]

The only difference between the mafia and the army, is your ability to spit out ignorance freely on a public forum; they've also given their lives in service, so you could freely protest your government.

I find it funny, that people like you with this much arrogance, belittle those who would rather serve their nation. Just because we're involved in a conflict you don't agree with, does not mean we are some cold blooded killers. It's sad to see someone like you, trying to inflate your ego, by post ignorance on an internet forum.

It's easy to be blinded by patriotism, so what would you think if it were Russia who had invaded and occupied Iraq right now instead. Would you still think it was a just war? Probably not.

 

[Lisa0315]

I respect our military. I have no respect for those who cannot tell the difference between a soldier and a political machine. Hate the machine all you like. Keep your vile comments about our soldiers to yourself.

Lisa

 

[stan1980]

Well, for several reasons.
1. The Mafia guy is presumably in it for the cash, while the serviceperson may have all kinds of other motivations for having joined up. (They may be moral motivations that you disagree with, but I think most servicepeople have at least some motives which are not self-serving.)
2. The army has a number of duties, some of which its members may agree with and others with which they may not. Unfortunately, you can't choose the bits you want. You can't join the army with a get-out clause that says "I will only fight when Britain is directly at risk." That's just not the way it works. In a world where there are people who will use our scruples against us, we need to have an army presence of people who are potentially willing to follow any order. Just imagine if soldiers were allowed to choose which wars to fight in. We'd be easy pickings.

ETA: Yes, they could say no, and face court-marshal. But do you really think that most soldiers are in a position to positively say that they know better than the people giving the orders?

Fair points. Still though, if someone were to sign up for the army tomorrow, knowing full well that they will likely be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan eventually, I would take it they have put their seal of approval on what Kofi Annan (UN Secretary-General) described as an illegal war (Iraq) a few years ago.

 

[GeratTzedek]

In two words: I DO.

I would like to take this moment to thank the men and women in the Military Service past and present who have put their lives on the line to protect me and my children and my community, and to protect innocents elsewhere in the world.

 

[Lisa0315]

In two words: I DO.

I would like to take this moment to thank the men and women in the Military Service past and present who have put their lives on the line to protect me and my children and my community, and to protect innocents elsewhere in the world.

I second that. Thank You for your courage and honor. May the Lord bless and protect you.

 

[David Brider]

What makes being a Soldier noble is the notion that you are ready to sacrifice your life for another person just as a policeman or a fireman. Isn't that noble?

Firemen are employed to save lives, and also risk their own lives as part of the job they do.

Policemen are employed to uphold the law, and also sometimes risk their lives as part of the job they do.

Soldiers are employed to kill people, and also sometimes risk their lives as part of the job they do.

For me, that's the bottom line. They kill people. I was always brought up to believe that killing people and harming people was fundamentally wrong. I still believe that, and have yet to be presented with any good reason to make exceptions for members of the armed forces - particularly not when the exceptions are usually expected to be made along national lines.

In other words, because I'm British, I'm supposed to respect the armed forces of Britain, and various allied armed forces such as those of the US or Australia. I don't notice anyone demanding that I should respect the armed forces of, say, Iraq, or Iran, or Argentina, or Vietnam, or Germany, or Italy, or Russia, or any one of numerous other nations who have at various points in history have fought against the British and the US.

If anyone really believes that the armed forces of their nation do such a terrific job, perhaps they could have a chat with the people those armed forces have maimed and wounded, or with the families of the people they've killed. It might leave you with a different perspective on things.

David.

 

[300B]

Police officers are hired to enforce the law, and to protect you. Occasionally they will kill someone.

Soldiers are hired to defend your country and will kill to do it.

Neither one are hired killers.

 

[ACougar]

Being a soldier is not about killing people, it's about defending a nation and that nations interests on the world stage. So if you live in a coutry with a democratic government, those soldiers are in theory serving you, protecting your interests and obeying the politicians you elect.

Now if the people we elect go off and use the military for questionable missions, that's our fault for electing neo-cons. The soldiers have sworn to defend the constitution and obey the officials we elect... they don't get to pick and choose which orders they will obey.

Firemen are employed to save lives, and also risk their own lives as part of the job they do.

Policemen are employed to uphold the law, and also sometimes risk their lives as part of the job they do.

Soldiers are employed to kill people, and also sometimes risk their lives as part of the job they do.

For me, that's the bottom line. They kill people. I was always brought up to believe that killing people and harming people was fundamentally wrong. I still believe that, and have yet to be presented with any good reason to make exceptions for members of the armed forces - particularly not when the exceptions are usually expected to be made along national lines.

In other words, because I'm British, I'm supposed to respect the armed forces of Britain, and various allied armed forces such as those of the US or Australia. I don't notice anyone demanding that I should respect the armed forces of, say, Iraq, or Iran, or Argentina, or Vietnam, or Germany, or Italy, or Russia, or any one of numerous other nations who have at various points in history have fought against the British and the US.

If anyone really believes that the armed forces of their nation do such a terrific job, perhaps they could have a chat with the people those armed forces have maimed and wounded, or with the families of the people they've killed. It might leave you with a different perspective on things.

David.

 

[stan1980]

Firemen are employed to save lives, and also risk their own lives as part of the job they do.

Policemen are employed to uphold the law, and also sometimes risk their lives as part of the job they do.

Soldiers are employed to kill people, and also sometimes risk their lives as part of the job they do.

For me, that's the bottom line. They kill people. I was always brought up to believe that killing people and harming people was fundamentally wrong. I still believe that, and have yet to be presented with any good reason to make exceptions for members of the armed forces - particularly not when the exceptions are usually expected to be made along national lines.

In other words, because I'm British, I'm supposed to respect the armed forces of Britain, and various allied armed forces such as those of the US or Australia. I don't notice anyone demanding that I should respect the armed forces of, say, Iraq, or Iran, or Argentina, or Vietnam, or Germany, or Italy, or Russia, or any one of numerous other nations who have at various points in history have fought against the British and the US.


If anyone really believes that the armed forces of their nation do such a terrific job, perhaps they could have a chat with the people those armed forces have maimed and wounded, or with the families of the people they've killed. It might leave you with a different perspective on things.

David.

Police officers are hired to enforce the law, and to protect you. Occasionally they will kill someone.

Soldiers are hired to defend your country and will kill to do it.

Neither one are hired killers.

It's quite rare for a police officer to kill someone, at least in my country.

If you invade someones land, which is a lot of what our army are asked to do these days, then inevitably you are going to end up killing a lot of people including civilians. So to call soldiers "hired killers" isn't exactly way off the mark.

Being a soldier is not about killing people

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't most of the training given geared towards war situations? Generally in combat people are killed. They certainly aren't asked to go and play tiddlywinks are they?

 

[stan1980]

Anyway, bottom line is, if there were no people willing to be soldiers, there could be no wars. Unfortunately, there are, and lots of them in every country in the world. That doesn't mean they are deserving of any respect though, in my opinion.

 

[Khameo]

A soldier deserves no more respect than anyone else.

It is no secret that the US army is mainly comprised of poorer, younger people who have no career options for whatever reason. They're doing a job, and they're being paid for it. That's fine. A spade is a spade. If you want to go into the military, more power to you.

However, what I simply cannot abide by is the (entirely American) mindset that "We are fighting for our freedom! Iraq is stealing our freedom! We're fighting the terrorists!" No, you're not.
America never faced a single tangible threat from the Middle East. The only organization taking away freedom from Americans is the government, and they do it in the name of freedom. Do you see how retarded it is that the army claims to be fighting for freedom, while working under the one and only possible force that is actively able to take it away?

No, I will only give respect towards the army when it stops fighting for the government's interests and starts fighting for the people's.

 

[Lisa0315]

A soldier deserves no more respect than anyone else.

It is no secret that the US army is mainly comprised of poorer, younger people who have no career options for whatever reason. They're doing a job, and they're being paid for it. That's fine. A spade is a spade. If you want to go into the military, more power to you.

However, what I simply cannot abide by is the (entirely American) mindset that "We are fighting for our freedom! Iraq is stealing our freedom! We're fighting the terrorists!" No, you're not.
America never faced a single tangible threat from the Middle East. The only organization taking away freedom from Americans is the government, and they do it in the name of freedom. Do you see how retarded it is that the army claims to be fighting for freedom, while working under the one and only possible force that is actively able to take it away?

No, I will only give respect towards the army when it stops fighting for the government's interests and starts fighting for the people's.

America never experienced a single tangible threat from the Middle East??? Okay, that is some serious revisionist history.

Lisa

 

[stan1980]

America never experienced a single tangible threat from the Middle East??? Okay, that is some serious revisionist history.

Lisa

Don't be an idiot about this. No country was a threat to America. After decades of interference and supplying weapons to certain countries a few people are bound to be disgruntled, and I fear the latest wars have done more to recruit terrorists than the terrorist organisations could have ever managed on their own.