Are all soldiers like the Nazis?

Gustav said:
support and logistics is more like the civilian component of the military
how can you not support a doctor that tends to the wounded?
lucy is being disingenuous
Click to expand...

I've had this argument before about paramilitary staff. The problem is, without the soldiers who actively kill, they are unnecessary [in the armed forces]. Their presence is required to maintain an active unit of killers in "good working order"

Another example: People are all worked up about one guy using a tire iron on a Greek priest or some Muslim psychiatrist shooting a bunch of troops from his base.

But this is what the army is. That crackpot is one of many who will kill people somewhere and troops shooting troops is what armies do.

So why does one warrant an investigation and the other a medal?
 
S.A.M. said:
I've had this argument before about paramilitary staff. The problem is, without the soldiers who actively kill, they are unnecessary [in the armed forces]. Their presence is required to maintain an active unit of killers in "good working order"
Click to expand...


true enough
i guess degrees of culpability?
 
Without "killers" you and I would not be alive, we would all die like peaceful Neanderthals. Those "killers" kept our tribe alive, those "killers" kept our cities alive, those "killers" kept our nations alive.

Are you glad for being alive? Well thank them, the killers who protected all the people in your lineage, SAM.
 
draqon said:
Without "killers" you and I would not be alive, we would all die like peaceful Neanderthals. Those "killers" kept our tribe alive, those "killers" kept our cities alive, those "killers" kept our nations alive.

.
Click to expand...

Ever notice how its the men with the guns who make the rules about how necessary guns are? When anyone tells you its necessary to kill other people to keep the peace, don't you ever wonder if you're not the other people they want dead?
 
S.A.M. said:
Was it his choice to de-mine? Or was he following orders? Was he invited to Afghanistan or is he part of the occupation? Whose orders is he following in Afghanistan? The Afghanis or the British? Is he legally in Afghanistan or illegally?
Click to expand...

Yes and no he is an engineer and trained to mine as well as de-mine, he's an explosives specialist among other things. He didn't choose where he could go to do what he does but he loved Afghanistan and he enjoys his work. Well he was in Afghanistan AFTER the Russians has waged their war and BEFORE the Taliban came in or at least only in the early days of the Taliban when they first entered Kabul. So if you think that children being blown up because they picked up something shiny is acceptable then no nation would have sent their men there for humanitarian purposes. In Afghanistan he was the TA (technical adviser) of a team of de-miners and they would work along with the UN at times but mostly not. Since the Afghani's did not have de-miners and no infrastructure to actually go about a de-mining mission with the proper equipment and procedure you can say that the Afghanis' were in no position to 'give orders'. Funny when they had to ask permission to continue their work when the Taliban took over they had a really difficult time but they did finally get it. Seems the Taliban finally realized that they too were in no position to 'give orders' that were of any benefit to the Afghani people.
 
S.A.M. said:
Ever notice how its the men with the guns who make the rules about how necessary guns are? When anyone tells you its necessary to kill other people to keep the peace, don't you ever wonder if you're not the other people they want dead?
Click to expand...

So women would deal things differently? No guns, spears...ehhh?

I am sure Amazonian women who actively utilized warfare would be for the cause of your argument: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/previous_seasons/case_amazon/index.html
 
S.A.M. said:
So all his love for Afghanistan notwithstanding he would lay mines if ordered to.
Click to expand...

Why would he have to lay mines in Afghanistan?:bugeye:

I know another who voluntarily went to Afghanistan's Helmand Province and also to Iraq. He calls them both 'shitholes' and doesn't believe that the people are worth risking ones life over but then again his experience is that of the battleground. I think the British have very worthy men indeed and it need not be wasted in these places under the guise of protecting innocent people from a monster regime like the Taliban. But hey that's what they do, its what they are trained to do and they do it well. Soldiers who pick and choose their wars are not soldiers but mercenaries.

This same guy was also in Kosovo under a UN hat helping to protect muslims from being slaughtered but hey, I guess he should have known better and stayed home. Actually the whole world should have allowed every single one of them to continue to be raped, caged and slaughtered. I wonder why there were no troops from the middle east being sent to protect their religious brethren. The west decided to take care of it. Why didn't troops from muslim countries go to aid their muslim brothers and sisters? Why no troops from Iran? Or Syria? Is it that they had no concern?

Do you remember the undisciplined excess of Pakistani soldiers:

"February 23, 2005 - (Reuters) The United Nations is investigating allegations that three Pakistani policemen raped a woman in Haiti while deployed on a U.N. stabilization mission, a spokesman said on Wednesday."

http://www.margueritelaurent.com/campaigns/campaignone/testimonies/jordanrape.html#investigating
 
Soldiers who pick and choose their wars are not soldiers but mercenaries
Click to expand...

Because doing it for material gain is worse than doing it for no reason at all?

undisciplined excess of .... soldiers
Click to expand...

This is something new?
 
S.A.M. said:
Because doing it for material gain is worse than doing it for no reason at all?



This is something new?
Click to expand...

No. I'm saying that the duty of a soldier is to follow orders. For example if an ex-military guy goes to work as a contractor he doesn't have to go to Iraq or Afghanistan unless he chooses to go. He can also decide in what capacity he is used, he can request work as close protection for example.

No its not new. Pakistani soldiers generally have a terrible reputation as far as undisciplined brutish behaviour.

You know Sam if Muslim countries took responsibility the West would quite happily allow them to clean up the mess in their own societies. But for some reason they don't.

If it wasn't for the US ignoring international law and flying into a 'no fly zone' in Serbia just to get a picture of the camps that the Serbs denied the existence of then the world wouldn't have known that muslims were being slaughtered. They risked their assess for the sake of saving a civilian population from genocide. But hey they're all just a bunch of nazi's right?
 
Lucysnow said:
No. I'm saying that the duty of a soldier is to follow orders.
Click to expand...

Thats what I am saying too. Its the principle idea of being cannon fodder that you don't ask questions. Its what the guys on both side have in common.

They both justify [and celebrate] the killing.
 
Lucysnow said:
Following orders and protocol is what ensures they don't become canon fodder.
Click to expand...

Actually following orders is how both sides become and create cannon fodder.

You seem to be making the argument that one side is more justified in the killing than the other. Note that this depends on which side of the fence you stand on.

At the individual level of the soldier, it makes no difference which side they are killing or dying for. If they did not consider it justified, would they still do it?
 
S.A.M. said:
Actually following orders is how both sides become and create cannon fodder.
Click to expand...

No Sam. Its their job, we're not talking about reservists here we are talking about career soldiers. The only cannon fodder I know of are the kids who throw stones at Israeli soldiers.:rolleyes:
 
S.A.M. said:
Actually following orders is how both sides become and create cannon fodder.

You seem to be making the argument that one side is more justified in the killing than the other. Note that this depends on which side of the fence you stand on.

At the individual level of the soldier, it makes no difference which side they are killing or dying for. If they did not consider it justified, would they still do it?
Click to expand...

I am not making such an argument. You said that all soldiers are nazi's and asked whether a soldier can be a good one without being a soldier. For the individual soldier they know all too well what side they are dying and fighting for. If they are a career soldier its not their job to question the validity of a war which is politics. A career soldier has a duty to his state not to any particular ideology. They go as a team, they go to protect the guy who is next to them. They go because its their job to go.
 
You said that all soldiers are nazi's and asked whether a soldier can be a good one without being a soldier
Click to expand...

Nope thats not what I asked.

I asked if all soldiers were like the Nazis, doing bad things to other human beings because they were trained to follow orders [ I don't see why the method of killing makes that much difference in the hi tech age - its as easy to turn on an oven as it is to drop a cluster bomb, the cluster bomb being more painful of the two]

And if they all justified their actions by ideology [nationalism, liberation, bringing democracy la di da etc]

Gitmo for example has this classic motto out front : honor bound to defend freedom.

http://www.jtfgtmo.southcom.mil/photoarchive/2007/August/070810-A-9156C-017.jpg

Which is more accurately depicted like this:

2008sami3.jpg
 
S.A.M. said:
Nope thats not what I asked.

I asked if all soldiers were like the Nazis, doing bad things to other human beings because they were trained to follow orders [ I don't see why the method of killing makes that much difference in the hi tech age - its as easy to turn on an oven as it is to drop a cluster bomb, the cluster bomb being more painful of the two]

And if they all justified their actions by ideology [nationalism, liberation, bringing democracy la di da etc]

Gitmo for example has this classic motto out front : honor bound to defend freedom.
Click to expand...


Its not the same. A nazi isn't a soldier its a political party, an ideology.

Killing a civilian population in an oven, ones own civilian population at that, isn't the same as fighting a war, dropping a bomb. How would you know how it is to die in a cluster bomb? How do you know what it is to die that you can claim one worse than the other? You are talking out of your ass!!

Gitmo and Abu Gharib are disaster stories. Shit happens. But you are drawing a conclusion which amounts to this:

A few bad soldiers=All soldiers are bad

Its the same equation as:

A few muslims are terrorists=All terrorists are muslim

Soldiers don't justify their actions to anyone but their commanding officer. When you are in the middle of the war the last thing you are quibbling about is 'ideology'. They are taking care of their lives and the lives of the men around them.
 
Its not the same. A nazi isn't a soldier its a political party, an ideology.
Click to expand...

Its one ideology. Whats the difference, where the mindless killing is concerned, with any other? What makes a cluster bomb a better kind of killing? Whats good about killing like that? Why is one soldier torturing one civilian worse than if the same guy got into an aircraft and shredded thousands?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top