Soldiers Are Not Heroes

[Luminary]

I'm a little baffled by this discussion. While war might not be ideal, it is inevitable. Whether by our hands or by our enemies', we'll fight with people. It's childish and idealistic to think anything else. And if war is inevitable, soldiers are necessary.
So, by necessity, these people go through hell. They are heroes. I thought this was common knowledge.

These things should be entirely separate: disagreeing with the military, and your opinion of soldiers. Wars are being fought not as the result of soldiers, but as the result of politicians and generals. Any beef you have with the circumstances of war should be taken up with those who start them, not those who fight them. Society -needs- people who are "cogs in the machine".

Generally, I'm quite proud of my country's military. Canada's ideals are peacekeeping and responsibility. Whether or not we have succeeded with them, I am proud of our ideals.

 

[Siete]

Two points;

a) Without soldiers, we would not have military.
b) Since when is being idealistic a bad thing?

EDIT: And I think the main purpose of the group and the movement isn't to complain about soldiers, more to get rid of the hero-worship that goes with being a soldier.

 

[Luminary]

Where I said "military" in my previous post, I should have said "the administration of the military".

We need a military. The military performs two practically irrefutable tasks: disaster relief and home security. Soldiers sign up for this necessary institution, and in doing so, put themselves in the line of fire. Wars (or, rather, "police actions" as ferrouswheel pointed out) are a specific aspect of the military. If you have a problem with a specific aspect of the military, you need to take it up with the administration, not the grunts. The grunts are the people who go through hell for an ultimately necessary institution.

I suppose being idealistic is fine, as long as it's a personality trait. If you're suggesting that unilateral disarmament is practical, your idealism has gone too far in my opinion.

 

[Ancien Régime]

where's luduan when you need him

this neocon circlejerk is making me rage.

In short, soldiers are NOT "heroes", they are mass murderers.

If you murder 150 civilians, you are a mass murderer.

If you shoot at unarmed civilians, you are a mass murderer.

If you shoot at a bus full of innocent people, you are a mass murderer.

And so on. And so forth.

But of course, these were "accidents" or "mistakes". But if they weren't wearing the uniform of the American State, but were simply private persons, would this still be okay?

The fact is, Statism is a mental disorder, and it is a form of psychopathy, because it allows people to rationalize acts that are obviously evil with excuses and justifications and outright lies. Essentially, it is okay to kill people if the government tells you to do so - that is the essence of statism, and it is no more clearly expressed than in war. And because so many people believe in the mass delusion that causes the average person to identify with the megalomania and murderousness of governments, it is easy to craft propaganda that casts people and institutions that murder far more than nearly any "terrorist" as heroes.

 

[vonFiedler]

Scenario 1) We have an army and accept the consequences, that soldiers kill.
Scenario 2) We call our soldiers murderers, abolish the army, get conquered.

If I am a psychopath regime, then you are completely insane.

 

[billymills]

where's luduan when you need him

this neocon circlejerk is making me rage.

In short, soldiers are NOT "heroes", they are mass murderers.

If you murder 150 civilians, you are a mass murderer.

If you shoot at unarmed civilians, you are a mass murderer.

If you shoot at a bus full of innocent people, you are a mass murderer.

And so on. And so forth.

But of course, these were "accidents" or "mistakes". But if they weren't wearing the uniform of the American State, but were simply private persons, would this still be okay?

There is no doubt that soldiers make mistakes. There is no doubt that accidents happen. There is also no doubt that some people in the military are clearly incapable of acting properly and should never have been handed a gun. But this is all irrelevant.

There is clearly a spectrum here, with idiots and terrorists on one side and heroes on the other. Those responsible for the above incidents are clearly not worthy of any praise, and should possibly be incarcerated; however, there are still some who do make an attempt to help people. (Not in the "we must save them from their inferior system" but rather these people need shelter, water, and food.) There are things that are worth fighting for, and war to some degree is inevitable, those willing to fight for what should be fought for should be commended.

Soldiers are mass murderers seems just as faulty as soldiers are heroes. Then again "Some soldiers are heroes and others are mass murderers and some are neither" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

The fact is, Statism is a mental disorder, and it is a form of psychopathy, because it allows people to rationalize acts that are obviously evil with excuses and justifications and outright lies. Essentially, it is okay to kill people if the government tells you to do so - that is the essence of statism, and it is no more clearly expressed than in war. And because so many people believe in the mass delusion that causes the average person to identify with the megalomania and murderousness of governments, it is easy to craft propaganda that casts people and institutions that murder far more than nearly any "terrorist" as heroes.

No argument here.

 

[Ancien Régime]

Scenario 1) We have an army and accept the consequences, that soldiers kill.
Scenario 2) We call our soldiers murderers, abolish the army, get conquered.

If I am a psychopath regime, then you are completely insane.

holy wow did anyone advocate not defending ourselves?

but of course, apparently "bombing other countries = self-defense" amirite?

There are things that are worth fighting for, and war to some degree is inevitable, those willing to fight for what should be fought for should be commended.

Sure. But other than WWII (and there was plenty of horrible shit in that war like using WMDs on civilian population centers) tell me the last "good" military action?

 

[vonFiedler]

You're the one who said that soldiers are mass murderers. I guess I just assumed that you weren't fine with mass murderers. I guess you love mass murderers so long as their your country's mass murderers. Oh, statism, right. You did say something about that existing.

 

[Lelouch]

So we shouldn't complain partly because it got oil for us, despite it being morally questionable at best?

Everything is morally questionable. You'd have to work really hard to complain about deposing a regime of Saddam Huissein's kind, though. And to whine about those poor Iraqis not knowing the real value of oil to be qualified to make deals with the oil companies... well, now who's pretentious?

Incidentally, I had thought a US oil company had secured an agreement, but apparently not - only British and Chinese. What I misremembered about the US oil company was the US granting a US oil company the right to operate in Iraq, not Iraq granting same.

 

[billymills]

Sure. But other than WWII (and there was plenty of horrible shit in that war like using WMDs on civilian population centers) tell me the last "good" military action?

Damn. WWII is usually my example of last good military action.

uhh... no, sorry! There were times when it was probably a good idea, but none have materialised. (i.e.: I think a decent case could have be made for military intervention in Rwanda in 1994, or possibly other genocides over the past 50 years.)

 

[Ancien Régime]

You're the one who said that soldiers are mass murderers. I guess I just assumed that you weren't fine with mass murderers. I guess you love mass murderers so long as their your country's mass murderers. Oh, statism, right. You did say something about that existing.

At the very least the "enemy" actually was evil in that one and there actually was a reasonable chance that defeat would mean really bad shit for innocent people.

Not this "WE'RE DEFENDING FREEDOM BY BOMBING GOOKS AND SANDNIGGERS" bullshit.

 

[Lelouch]

At the very least the "enemy" actually was evil in that one and there actually was a reasonable chance that defeat would mean really bad shit for innocent people.

Really bad shit was happening to innocent people in Iraq and had been for decades. Putting a stop to that, other motives aside, must surely be considered desirable?

 

[vonFiedler]

Not this "WE'RE DEFENDING FREEDOM BY BOMBING GOOKS AND SANDNIGGERS" bullshit.

Damn, that would have been so much better than red meat and wife beating when I was implying that Lelouch was trying to act like a stereotype. Cause everyone who respects soldiers is a racist.

I'm just pointing out that if everyone else was as keen on demonizing soldiers as you are, who would join the military? No military, no defense. We can't pick and choose when to support a vital government function just because we don't think it's being used right.

 

[Lelouch]

I'm just pointing out that if everyone else was as keen on demonizing soldiers as you are, who would join the military? No military, no defense. We can't pick and choose when to support a vital government function just because we don't think it's being used right.

Why can't you pick and choose when you approve of military deployment/spending?

As for "red meat and wife beating" - murder, arson and jaywalking, no?

 

[vonFiedler]

Why can't you pick and choose when you approve of military deployment/spending?

Well see that's not the same thing as calling all soldiers mass murderers.

As for "red meat and wife beating" - murder, arson and jaywalking, no?

I'm not sure you understand what I'm trying to say. First you were calling the US a place that worships murderers, now all of a sudden you're acting like you support the war and that it's morally right and I don't believe your shtick for a second.

 

[Lelouch]

I'm not sure you understand what I'm trying to say. First you were calling the US a place that worships murderers, now all of a sudden you're acting like you support the war and that it's morally right and I don't believe your shtick for a second.

The two beliefs aren't mutually exclusive. If you point out where you believe the discrepancy lies, I'll address it.

 

[cantab]

holy wow did anyone advocate not defending ourselves?

but of course, apparently "bombing other countries = self-defense" amirite?

If you have good intelligence that tells you those other countries are planning to attack you, then yes.

Of course in the case of Iraq, the leaders knew the evidence was shit, and lied through their teeth.

 

[Lelouch]

Of course in the case of Iraq, the leaders knew the evidence was shit, and lied through their teeth.

To be fair, we don't know for sure. Bush was an impressionable man-child, someone filling his precious head with horror stories about mean sand (BAN ME PLEASE)s would naturally terrify him.

That and he wanted to make his daddy proud by taking after him like a dog after a ball.

 

[Siete]

Everything is morally questionable. You'd have to work really hard to complain about deposing a regime of Saddam Huissein's kind, though.

Yeah, except we put Hussein there. We supported him, gave him money and arms. There was nothing good about putting down Hussein, just America wiping their ass. Whilst still screwing people over.

And to whine about those poor Iraqis not knowing the real value of oil to be qualified to make deals with the oil companies... well, now who's pretentious?

What? I don't think I said anything of the sort.

 

[Ludo]

In short, soldiers are NOT "heroes", they are mass murderers.

Essentially, it is okay to kill people if the government tells you to do so - that is the essence of statism, and it is no more clearly expressed than in war.

Aside from the incidents you linked to, you also have to consider the times on the battlefield where it is kill or be killed - that's combat, not murder.

In some respects I agree with your point, just from a different perspective, which is this - I always find it bizarre when people who support the military are against the death penalty. They like to argue from the "who are we to take the life of another" standpoint, which is hugely contradictory.

 

[Lelouch]

Yeah, except we put Hussein there. We supported him, gave him money and arms. There was nothing good about putting down Hussein, just America wiping their ass. Whilst still screwing people over.

You can't hold a country accountable for its actions forever - especially not one that completely flip-flops every four or eight years.

I inferred the condescension about Iraqis from your post - the "morally questionable" comment.

 

[cantab]

I always find it bizarre when people who support the military are against the death penalty. They like to argue from the "who are we to take the life of another" standpoint, which is hugely contradictory.

I am against the death penalty because we can never have an infallible justice system. But that's discussion for another thread really.

 

[MegaKick]

All these people saying a troops are nothing more than trained killers...do you think we should stop training them to be killers? Mayby, in your perfect world, if we stop fighting, our enemies will stop. That is bullshit. Our troops are killers because people need to be killed, so that lives can be saved. Our enemies are trained killers, except they do night fight for honor, they fight for blood. The phrase "we fight for peace" is not an oxymoron, simply because there is no alternative. This is not a perfect world. We need military because no one can live in peace without some sort of power over them, because of greed.
Other people say there is a lot of pressure to join the military. There is, but I would say there is a lot more pressure to not join the military. Giving up everything and everyone you know and love for years to go serve in hell and possible die is a pretty big motivator.
So basically, it comes down to, these are people are giving up everything, pherhaps even there lives, to look evil in the eye so you can sleep at night in peace instead of in the dusty remains of a bombed city, slowly waiting for the destruction of humanity. Pretty God Damn Heroic.
If you don't think they're heroes, go join the military. Or even interview someone who's been in the marine core and won a purple heart. (RIP grandpa) It will rock you to your core.

 

[Ludo]

I am against the death penalty because we can never have an infallible justice system. But that's discussion for another thread really.

It is a different discussion entirely I agree, and my personal view on it is the same as yours - but hypothetically speaking, in a war situation you are assuming your enemy, ie an individual at a time, to be guilty of specific war crimes without actually knowing the truth about that person.

If you don't think they're heroes, go join the military. Or even interview someone who's been in the marine core and won a purple heart. (RIP grandpa) It will rock you to your core.

The discussion wasn't that no-one in the military is a hero, but that not everyone in the military is automatically a hero simply because they joined the forces. My grandfather received the Victoria Cross for his part in WW2 so I'm not speaking without any background knowledge, for my own part.

 

[Objection]

Our troops are killers because people need to be killed, so that lives can be saved. Our enemies are trained killers, except they do night fight for honor, they fight for blood.

The enemies might use the exact same words, referring to us as their bloodthirsty enemies and themselves as the protectors of the people. My point here is, you cannot state the motives of your enemies because you do not know them because you are not in their heads reading their thoughts.

What this really comes down to is whether being a soldier automatically makes you a hero, and there's plenty of debate regarding that already.