Are all soldiers like the Nazis?

[rainbloggy]

I think the difference between Nazis and the common soldier nowadays, is the difference in motivation. The idealism behind the two are completely different. One is to purify, the other to create peace. If you're questioning war itself, that could get more interesting.

 

[Gustav]

People who join the military typically couldn't cut it in a real, civilized profession that is designed for peaceful pursuits. Hence they embrace an occupation for the losers of life, one that embraces only destruction. Truth.

Typically some one who states something like this has statistics. Care to share?

It's a bullshit assertion on its face, of course, and can only be supported if you already believe the rest of the piss and vitriol he's been spewing throughout the thread.

Statistically, members of the US military are more or less a cross section of mainstream America. They do tend to be both better educated and more likely to come from wealthier backgrounds than their peers in civilian life, however.


http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda08-05.cfm

edit: I have no idea what similar statistics from the other professional militaries of the world would look like, but my experience with allied forces (which has been varied and rather extensive) leads me to believe they are much the same.

Nicely said in post #310, Echo3Romeo.

This entire thread is yet another trollfest from SAM. I'm glad that some members of the military are here to put her back in her box.

you do know echo was addressing willnever, right?

 

[Gustav]

addressing the op

Do they just mindlessly follow orders even when they are wrong?

of course. that is the whole point. refuse and.....

For example, during the first few months Obama was Commander in Chief of the United States Military, it charged and convicted U.S. soldier Clifford Cornell of desertion, and sentenced him to one year in prison for refusing to participate in the Iraq War. The charge occurred February 23, 2009, in Obama's second month, and the conviction occurred April 24, 2009. (wiki)

Do they all justify wrong behaviour with ideology?

how would we find that out? individual questionnaires? an examination of the sociopolitical landscape and milieu the soldiers are recruited from?

 

[S.A.M.]

I think the difference between Nazis and the common soldier nowadays, is the difference in motivation. The idealism behind the two are completely different. One is to purify, the other to create peace. If you're questioning war itself, that could get more interesting.

Where is the evidence that the Nazi foot soldiers were interested in purification and not simply doing it for their fatherland, the way most foot soldiers do?

Statistically, members of the US military are more or less a cross section of mainstream America. They do tend to be both better educated and more likely to come from wealthier backgrounds than their peers in civilian life, however..

So what are they doing following orders to invade and occupy other countries?

Are they incapable of a rational decision making process that precludes violence against the unarmed or defenseless?

I'm not sure I understand this because SERE is Survival, Evasion, Resistance, & Escape. It is the training our Armed Forces participate in if they are in high risk fields. And, by high risk, I mean more likely to become a POW (Prisoner of War). They do NOT learn weapon handling.

And, this isn't WWII. We don't carpet bomb villages/towns to get one house anymore. We have precision guided munitions.

Which part of this is not premeditated?

Am I to judge all Indians by your actions? Am I to judge all members of these forums by your actions? Are you an accurate representation of EVERYBODY in your vicinity?

Depends on the criteria. Do you think Indian soldiers have different motivations from any other?

I'm not sure SAM I understand(s) this because SERE is Survival, Evasion, Resistance, & Escape.

I know what it is alrightm its the institution for teaching violence. If the Iraqis opened one in Iraq to train people on how to deal with occupation forces the Americans would bomb it.

An Army document proves that Guantánamo interrogators were taught by instructors from a military school that trains U.S. soldiers how to resist torture.
By Mark Benjamin

Human rights advocates have long suspected a link between interrogations in the "war on terror" and a secretive military survival school that trains elite U.S. troops to resist torture. Jane Mayer explored the evidence of a connection between the Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape school at Fort Bragg, N. C., and real-world interrogators in a July 2005 piece for the New Yorker. Now Salon has the first hard proof of that connection, via one document buried among 1,000 pages obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union through the Freedom of Information Act. A March 22, 2005, sworn statement by the former chief of the Interrogation Control Element at Guantánamo said instructors from SERE also taught their methods to interrogators of the prisoners in Cuba.

"When I arrived at GTMO," reads the statement, "my predecessor arranged for SERE instructors to teach their techniques to the interrogators at GTMO ... The instructors did give some briefings to the Joint Interrogation Group interrogators."

"This is the missing link," declared Leonard Rubenstein, executive director of Physicians for Human Rights. "It is proof that the SERE training was in fact used, for a time at least, as a basis for interrogations at Guantánamo." "That is what I inferred had happened," agreed retired Brig. Gen. Stephen Xenakis, former commanding general of the Southeast Regional Army Medical Command, "but I have never seen this documented anywhere." The sworn statement suggests that Fort Bragg was the incubator of the abuse that later migrated from Guantánamo to Abu Ghraib, and is further evidence of the systematic nature of torture in the war on terror.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/29/torture/

 

[Gustav]

The second World War was the last *necessary* war when our sovereignty was potentially under threat and we were attacked by the Japanese. All American wars after that time were against individuals who had never done a single bad thing to us and who posed no threat to us in any way whatsoever. Our country was not in peril, and our "freedom" didn't need defending. That's a self-serving rationalization used by greedy warbots.

In the mean time, anyone who signs up for military service TODAY, for any reason whatsoever, is an accomplice to murder. That's a fact. People who never once did a single thing to harm us are being killed over in Iraq by greedy foreign invaders. By signing up for military service, you are adding yourself to that pool of greedy foreign invaders, and furthering their cause. That's not heroic... that's SICK. How much is a career worth to you in gallons of human blood?

The problem indeed lies with the people fighting the war. They're the ones who are the most direct party to the killing. The buck truly stops with them and they do nothing.

Almost no one in the military has saved a life. Tons of them have taken lives, however. And for the ones who have done neither: all they've really done for the past few years of their lives is make themselves available to engage in unprovoked violence in a foreign land. They're enablers, which is why I say EVERYONE in the military is either a murderer or an accomplice to murder. Someone brought up those who are in the military who are in it for college money. That is by design, and the military loves dupes like that. It's called "deliberately limiting your choices." How else do you think an all-volunteer military could possibly survive... especially during wartime..?

Most who sign up for the military are career-minded mercenaries who joined up in order to advance their own ambitions. That's very sad... but it's also a testament to the successful marketing scheme that has been put into place by the military. "The skills you need to succeed in life" is now the tagline of every army promo on the television, and all of them set in a 3 yard wide scratbag trailer, the kid flashing his colorful brochure to his toiled parents, all wearing the puerto rican sleeveless shirts. That's what our military has degenerated into... and it's very disheartening to compare the motives of today's troops to the motives of the TRUE patriots who fought in the American revolution. Indeed, today''s military forces are a mere shadow of a much more noble legacy.

Of course everyone in this thread who has signed up for military service will be outraged by my words. That's because, if what I said is true (and it is), it means that they have been WASTING THEIR LIVES. I still, however, correctly defined what the military is all about. When you join the American military today, you are in most cases agreeing to kill people who never once did a single bad thing to harm you or your country. That's not debateable. That's what's REALLY going on, and it's not a matter of opinion.

bravo
as a pacifist, i can only commend willnever for these posts

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one​

lock and load, warmongers

Riding through Iraq across the burning sand
Grenades in my pocket and my rifle in my hand
Looking for terrorists wearing New Balance shoes
Gonna kill those camel-humpers, start spreadin' the news

CHORUS:
The Marines are in town - gonna blow you up
The Marines are in town - leave you all f***ed up
The Marines are in town - just ain't your day
'Cuz the Marines are in town and we'll blow you away

Got my RPG and my M16
I'm the baddest jar head that you've ever seen
I'll take my bayonet and I'll cut you in half
Then like Lyndie England I'll just point and laugh

[CHORUS]

Why don't you act civil like your friends the French?
Surrender this game and go sit on the bench
Go home sucker, before I make you dead
'Cuz you can't terrorize with a bullet in your head

[CHORUS]

Gonna bring freedom to this backwards land
Leave a**holes like you face down in the sand
I'll leave you for dead, lying on the berm
'Cuz the buzzard's gotta eat, just the same as the worm

(Final Chorus)
The Marines are in town - time to say good-bye
The Marines are in town - and your gonna die
The Marines are in town - shoulda stayed in bed
You f***ed with the Marines, now you're gonna be dead.​

 

[rainbloggy]

Where is the evidence that the Nazi foot soldiers were interested in purification and not simply doing it for their fatherland, the way most foot soldiers do?

There probably was a great deal of "doing it for their fatherland", but the swastika is a Buddhist symbol for purity. True, the purity thing might have simply been a way for Hitler to convince more people, but I think many of the actual soldiers believed it.

 

[Gustav]

i remember ye days of old when we peacenick liberals kicked the military off our campuses.
we refused to allow them to indoctrinate our children and send them to their deaths.
even to this very day, the ivy league keep the rotc persona non grata on their campuses

yes sir
we care about our young. we care about peace and diplomacy. we care about our fellow human beings.

 

[S.A.M.]

There probably was a great deal of "doing it for their fatherland", but the swastika is a Buddhist symbol for purity. True, the purity thing might have simply been a way for Hitler to convince more people, but I think many of the actual soldiers believed it.

Ignorance is NOT a point of view.

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

 

[rainbloggy]

Whoops, my bad point sam.

 

[Gustav]

perhaps it is time to indict the insidious efforts to militarize american society
expose the dark underbelly of echo's feelgood stats

/snicker

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

So what are they doing following orders to invade and occupy other countries?

Are they incapable of a rational decision making process that precludes violence against the unarmed or defenseless?

Well that's the thing Sam they are not killing 'innocent', 'unarmed' nor 'defenseless' people. You do realize that there are more deaths caused by anti-government forces, suicide bombers and the like than by outside forces. Look at Pakistan, its Taliban killing off innocent people who are minding their own business sitting in Cafe's and university halls. Why not rage against that? Why not rage against insurgents who kill Iraqi's on a daily basis?

Soldier's are intelligent enough to make informed decisions but wise enough to carry out orders. The military is a machine where everyone has to play a small part in a larger picture.

And by the way Echo wasn't asking about the motivations of Indian soldiers. He was asking if he should judge every Indian person by your actions ('your' as in 'you'). Perhaps you already know that and were simply utilizing your infamous red herring evasion tactics.

Sam: I know what it is alrightm its the institution for teaching violence. If the Iraqis opened one in Iraq to train people on how to deal with occupation forces the Americans would bomb it.

:roflmao:

Jesus you are really ignorant on this subject! SERE IS NOT AN INSTITUTION

 

[S.A.M.]

Well that's the thing Sam they are not killing 'innocent', 'unarmed' nor 'defenseless' people. You do realize that there are more deaths caused by anti-government forces, suicide bombers and the like than by outside forces.

And? What makes the anti-government insurgents different from the occupiers?

The invasion and occupation of Iraq/Afghanistan is essentially a war against the unarmed. If what is happening in Iraq was happening in any other countries [occupying forces training locals to fight their own people], would it be any different? Would it matter to you if your family was killed by a local soldier trained by the occupation or by the occupation forces themselves?

Since you keep referring to Palestine, if the IDF trains the Abu Mazen forces to kill those who protest their occupation, does it matter that the soldiers are Palestinians?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

And? What makes the anti-government insurgents different from the occupiers?

The invasion and occupation of Iraq/Afghanistan is essentially a war against the unarmed. If what is happening in Iraq was happening in any other countries [occupying forces training locals to fight their own people], would it be any different? Would it matter to you if your family was killed by a local soldier trained by the occupation or by the occupation forces themselves?

Since you keep referring to Palestine, if the IDF trains the Abu Mazen forces to kill those who protest their occupation, does it matter that the soldiers are Palestinians?

Well again the difference is that they deliberately attack civilians, their own people.

Bullshit! It is not a war against the unarmed, that's pure fantasy on your part. Were the russians also fighting an unarmed population? If they were unarmed Sam there would be no war. The russians did not get their ass kicked by unarmed men!!

I'm confused. I didn't mention anything about the Palestinians in my last post.

 

[S.A.M.]

All soldiers deliberately attack civilians, whether its their own people or any other people. Or do you think US air strikes are an example of random chance? They simply cover it up with BS.

 

[Dywyddyr]

All soldiers deliberately attack civilians

Possibly a slight a exaggeration there...

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

All soldiers deliberately attack civilians, whether its their own people or any other people. Or do you think US air strikes are an example of random chance? They simply cover it up with BS.

And that is bullshit!! All soldiers do not 'deliberately' attack civilians. Civilian casualties happen because sometimes they are in the way, only terrorists deliberately attack civilians.

There have been drone mistakes, human error mistakes, intelligence mistakes but that is a far cry from deliberately attacking civilians. Please try and keep the hyperbole in check!! What purpose is there in alienating the civilian population? That is not the objective and its counterproductive. You are suggesting that soldiers are there PRIMARILY to kill civilians and that is what I am calling Bullshit!

 

[S.A.M.]

Civilian casualties happen because sometimes they are in the way

In the way of what? Invading soldiers? The soldiers come to the civilian locations not the other way around.

 

[Gustav]

Civilian casualties happen because sometimes they are in the way,

/chuckle

is that a defense?
so theoretically if they are "in the way" 100% of the time, they will become casualties? they will be attacked?

sounds deliberate enough to me

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

In the way of what? Invading soldiers? The soldiers come to the civilian locations not the other way around.

Invading soldiers or what have you. Most of the war sam is not taking place in villages unless there is a situation where insurgents are taking refuge in a village, in which case its the insurgents that they are after.

If the 'invading' army left tomorrow Afghans would still be under the gun from Taliban forces and civilians would find themselves in the same hell they have been in for a long time.

"Nadiry accused the Taliban of repeated and systematic violations of IHL and the Geneva Conventions and said the insurgents’ tactics often deliberately put civilians at greater risk. Barnett Rubin, an expert on Afghanistan at New York University, said civilians were suffering the brunt of the Taliban’s insurgency. "


"Taliban insurgents have attacked schools and hospitals, and were now turning their attention to bigger infrastructural targets such as hydro-electric plants, bridges and telecommunications facilities, the AIHRC and analysts said."

http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=79537

 

[S.A.M.]

Let me put it this way, the soldier [American or Taliban or what have you] makes the choice to bear arms and enter a civilian locale. The civilian has NO choice in the matter. So, the onus of responsibility is with the armed person.

If a burglar broke into your house and shot you because you were in the way, would you be culpable or would he?