It makes as much sense as hiding behind civilians by living at home. All you have to do is bring the war home and you can decide how that works.
Are all soldiers like the Nazis?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
It makes as much sense as hiding behind civilians by living at home. All you have to do is bring the war home and you can decide how that works.
Are all soldiers like the Nazis? Not sure. I know these guys certainly are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas
Sometimes sovereign countries need to get invaded. They had a dangerous cancer growing inside of them, but were too childish to see it for what it was. The infection needs to be cauterized so it can't spread.
I hope the US and Israel will be invaded very soon because they are full of cancerous elements . Do we need another Hitler to invade them ?. The choice is yours .
There are two main obstacles to overcome here. The first is the sense, often held by those on the far left of the political spectrum, that soldiers automatically renounce their ethical standards when they don a uniform. The second is argued by those, often connected with the far right of the spectrum, who hold that soldiers are not accountable to ethical standards because "all's fair in love and war."
The truth is, the soldier must personify the highest ethical behavior in the society he serves, else he is a brute thug. Although it is true that soldiers are not moral philosophers, it is not at all correct that soldiers are not moral beings.
Where does this morality come from? It is imprinted in the minds of each recruit from the first day of basic training. It serves to accomplish two essentially complementary purposes: to educate the new members in the ways of the group, and to inculcate standards and ideals on which the members may rely in time of need. The Musketeer's familiar chant "all for one and one for all" sums it up nicely.
At the same time, soldiers are not called upon to exhibit devotion to the point of betrayal of conscience. Morality amounts to far more than slavishly following orders.
Professional soldiers are secular Jesuits, going forth to represent their ideals to a world all to ready to mock them. As a famous British military officer (whose name escapes me for the moment) put it, "The real discipline that a man holds to is the refusal to betray his comrades. The discipline that makes a sentry, whose whole body is tortured for sleep, rest his chin on the point of his bayonet because he knows that if he nods, he risks the lives of those that sleep behind him."
If that soldier slept, safe in his cot, while the enemy crept up and killed his comrades, and he awoke in the morning to find that only he was left alive, would he think "Boy am I glad that wasn't me," or "I guess their time was up"? Or would he be so overcome with sorrow, regret, and shame that it would be beyond words? Joseph Conrad's novel Lord Jim tells of a character who feels this shame until a chance comes for him to regain his honor is presented. But Conrad's novel is not widely read these days, and honor and shame are not normally subjects brought up on MTV.
The idea that one owes a sense of duty and honor to their family, their neighbors, or their country -- or indeed that "true faith and allegiance" are the noblest of ideals -- is often seen as silly and shallow today. The idea that a soldier could be the apogee of morality seems antiquated, even medieval.
But ultimately, these ideas are so much larger than any words I could type that either you have seen this in action and wish to emulate it, or such a chasm exists between yourself and this noble ideal that every word ever put to paper or digits could not fill the empty space.
The truth is, the soldier must personify the highest ethical behavior in the society he serves, else he is a brute thug. Although it is true that soldiers are not moral philosophers, it is not at all correct that soldiers are not moral beings.
Where does this morality come from? It is imprinted in the minds of each recruit from the first day of basic training. It serves to accomplish two essentially complementary purposes: to educate the new members in the ways of the group, and to inculcate standards and ideals on which the members may rely in time of need. The Musketeer's familiar chant "all for one and one for all" sums it up nicely.
At the same time, soldiers are not called upon to exhibit devotion to the point of betrayal of conscience. Morality amounts to far more than slavishly following orders.
Professional soldiers are secular Jesuits, going forth to represent their ideals to a world all to ready to mock them. As a famous British military officer (whose name escapes me for the moment) put it, "The real discipline that a man holds to is the refusal to betray his comrades. The discipline that makes a sentry, whose whole body is tortured for sleep, rest his chin on the point of his bayonet because he knows that if he nods, he risks the lives of those that sleep behind him."
If that soldier slept, safe in his cot, while the enemy crept up and killed his comrades, and he awoke in the morning to find that only he was left alive, would he think "Boy am I glad that wasn't me," or "I guess their time was up"? Or would he be so overcome with sorrow, regret, and shame that it would be beyond words? Joseph Conrad's novel Lord Jim tells of a character who feels this shame until a chance comes for him to regain his honor is presented. But Conrad's novel is not widely read these days, and honor and shame are not normally subjects brought up on MTV.
The idea that one owes a sense of duty and honor to their family, their neighbors, or their country -- or indeed that "true faith and allegiance" are the noblest of ideals -- is often seen as silly and shallow today. The idea that a soldier could be the apogee of morality seems antiquated, even medieval.
But ultimately, these ideas are so much larger than any words I could type that either you have seen this in action and wish to emulate it, or such a chasm exists between yourself and this noble ideal that every word ever put to paper or digits could not fill the empty space.
Usually this involves seeing killing other people [who are mostly strangers] as an ethical choice. Thats a skewed morality to begin with right there and then the training is all about abandoning independent moral choices in favour of group killing. The guy who creeps up on the dozing sentry and slices his throat [and the throats of his trusting, sleeping companions] is also a soldier.
Last edited:
The way I see it is, if you did what you do in your own neighborhood, what would it make you?
I'm always surprised when people are "shocked, shocked" at veterans going nuts and doing what they were trained to do to their own civlians. Its like training a dog to attack and then being surprised when he has your kid by the throat
I don't know what you do exactly, but you are an active soldier, so either you are involved in the B&E and M or you are part of the supporting network that makes it possible.
I'm always surprised when people are "shocked, shocked" at veterans going nuts and doing what they were trained to do to their own civlians. Its like training a dog to attack and then being surprised when he has your kid by the throat
I don't know what you do exactly, but you are an active soldier, so either you are involved in the B&E and M or you are part of the supporting network that makes it possible.
Last edited:
Yes, a soldier's premier responsibility lies in killing or in preparing to kill the designated enemies of their country. It is against this backdrop of violence that soldiers must adhere to the highest standards of personal and professional integrity, even as they pursue a life's work which is little appreciated or understood by the civilians to and for whom the soldier is responsible.
US Air Force General Sir John Hackett, said this during a speech at the Air Force Academy:
"A man can be selfish, cowardly, disloyal, fleeting, false, perjured, and morally corrupt in a wide variety of other ways and still be outstandingly good in pursuits in which other imperatives bear than those upon the fighting man. He can be a superb creative artist, for example, or a scientist in the very top flight, and still be a very bad man. What the bad man cannot be is a good soldier."
While it is true that, in the heat of combat, evil persons who kill the enemy can, for that short time, be considered "good soldiers," their corruption and venality disqualify them from being good soldiers for the 99 percent of the time they otherwise spend in the armed forces. Good people do not always make good soldiers, but bad people are always bad soldiers.
I will say it again: Soldiers who are not morally competent are not militarily competent. Those in uniform who know no more of their ostensible profession than saluting and shooting are atrocities waiting to happen, whether in Iraq, Serbia, or My Lai.
So in answer to your post, yes, there is killing involved in being a soldier. There have been soldiers who commit horrible acts in the name of "following orders". It is the military's responsibility to find those soldiers and weed them out before they have a chance to go do those kinds of things. It is each soldier's duty and task to act in the highest ethical tradition.
Adhering to morality against the backdrop of killing is a strange kind of cognitive dissonance.
Do you think the victims appreciate this moral high ground? I should ask one of the holocaust survivors if they would prefer being morally killed by a missile rather than immorally gassed
Do you think the victims appreciate this moral high ground? I should ask one of the holocaust survivors if they would prefer being morally killed by a missile rather than immorally gassed
So why did you call me a (outsourcing) martyr? Do you have reason to believe I am some form of recruiter using tactics for what I believe is most commonly used by hezbollah, hamas, taliban, etc.. etc
You have the same ignorance as a racist american white person in the 50's.
Would you say a police officer is a nazi because he broke into house and arrested a bad guy a martyr, nazi, psychopath? Martyr being the confusing one, even to me. I'm being extremely open minded I might add.
Do you know I have to aquire a warrant from an Iraqi judge in order to conduct most missions?
No I would not say the police officer is a Nazi unless he bombed the neighborhood because there was a suspected criminal there
The fact that you need a warrant from a judge to drag out women and children from their own homes is as valid an argument as the Germans allowing the Vichy government to round up French Jews.
Unless you think the French participation in the incarceration and murder of their own civilians excuses the actions of the Germans. Do you?
You're welcome to research the bullshit you're spewing at any point in this conversation. But actually now is where I stop until you do. Your trolling is far beyond my patience.
I too have little patience for any justification of such behaviour
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI8els8ZBF8
And this is a very mild version of what Afghanis see on a daily basis, day in and day out, for years and years.
Ohhh my god! Those poor doors!!!!!!! ohhhh the humanity!
I'm sure this women feels the pain of those doors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEI6qeOk0pY
I'm sure this women feels the pain of those doors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEI6qeOk0pY
That is terrible and one just asks : how can a human do that ?.
Some folks are hearts are hard as rocks .