(June 4, 2012 at 8:51 pm)liam Wrote: That's because soldiers are inherently immoral. If they sign up for killing people, what stretch is there to bullying, discrimination and intolerance?

I'm a veteran. Forum rules and common decency don't permit me to respond to this post in the way it deserves.

Quote:That's because soldiers are inherently immoral. If they sign up for killing people, what stretch is there to bullying, discrimination and intolerance?

Oh for fuck sake,what is a stupidly bigoted thing to say. I was a soldier,your comment is insulting,you ignorant cunt..

The hundreds with whom I served were no better and no worse than any other like sized group of human beings. All of my friends had a strict code of personal ethics and loyalty. I trusted them with my life.


Contrary to popular myth it's actually very difficult to get one human being to kill another. Almost every vet I've met who killed another person has been effected for life by the experience. The exceptions are the psychopaths,every army has a few.(I met ONE).

---

(June 4, 2012 at 9:36 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(June 4, 2012 at 8:51 pm)liam Wrote: That's because soldiers are inherently immoral. If they sign up for killing people, what stretch is there to bullying, discrimination and intolerance?

I'm a veteran. Forum rules and common decency don't permit me to respond to this post in the way it deserves.

Fuck him.

See my response; gets me in trouble, I'll wear it.

(June 4, 2012 at 9:08 pm)liam Wrote: Well, yes, if you kill people, you're immoral. Perhaps his motivation wasn't to kill but I'm pretty sure that the main occupation of a soldier is killing people because they come from a different country to you, with whom your own country is opposed to. If I have a completely wrong view of the military please do clarify for me

Soldiers are paid to kill people but alot of them don't see it that way. Most see it as defending their homeland. Its not their fault their government is deceptive and does not utilize them as such. Its wrong to accuse them all of being immoral. It is a generalized statement that is below you. I suggest you let this drop before it goes further.

(June 4, 2012 at 9:36 pm)padraic Wrote:

Quote:That's because soldiers are inherently immoral. If they sign up for killing people, what stretch is there to bullying, discrimination and intolerance?

Oh for fuck sake,what is a stupidly bigoted thing to say. I was a soldier,your comment is insulting,you ignorant cunt..

The hundreds with whom I served were no better and no worse than any other like sized group of human beings. All of my friends had a strict code of personal ethics and loyalty. I trusted them with my life.


Contrary to popular myth it's actually very difficult to get one human being to kill another. Almost every vet I've met who killed another person has been effected for life by the experience. The exceptions are the psychopaths,every army has a few.(I met ONE).

---

It's hardly bigoted, if it was bigoted it would be based on ignorance and I'm not being ignorant about it, perhaps my morality and yours differ greatly but that is no reason to insult me. I don't agree with war, there is nothing bigoted or ignorant about that, I'd argue it's very reasonable, I don't think you really had to stoop to personal insults but I understand you're offended.

I'm sorry but if anyone is willing to kill another person then, to me, they're morally wrong. I don't care if the situation where that willingness is visited upon them occurs, but the participation in warfare is wrong because those who partake in it, by occupation, MUST be willing to take human life and that's wrong. If that view offends you then perhaps you ought to relax a bit.

I know that it isn't easy to get a person to kill another but I don't see how that disproves what I'm saying, surely it is difficult because people SHOULDN'T be killing one another? I know that seeing people go through the trauma of killing is hard and that there is extreme psychological damage incurred through taking life but, yet again, there should be. If you kill someone then that guilt is entirely justified.

I get that you're upset that I disagree with the army because you served but I honestly don't agree with killing on any level and I hardly think that warrants personal insult.

Quote:I'm a veteran. Forum rules and common decency don't permit me to respond to this post in the way it deserves.

I don't see what difference you being a veteran makes, my point stands, warfare and the participation therein is wrong, what is questionable about that? This post demands a normal, rational response as it was put forward as an introduction to a rationally-considered view and doesn't deserve the kind of wrath you obviously intended.

Oh fuck me, I give you a way out like that where you could claim you mispoke and still be in the right by blaming the people who give the orders and you piss it away. You know what? Whatever, I'm taking a break from this thread.
Let it rip boys.

It was a generalised statement, yes. However, generalisations aren't necessarily wrong, especially not if they're based on a collective attribute which must be true. I don't see what I've done wrong other than perhaps some cavalier wording and a different moral stance

(June 4, 2012 at 8:13 pm)padraic Wrote: Combat troops MUST feel they can trust their comrades with their life. The simplest way (lots of grunts are REALLY thick) is shared world views,beliefs and values. The range of tolerated variation is very narrow.

I understand what you're saying, and agree with you on most of what you've said on this issue, I would just like to raise a point.

If one is going to trust someone with their life, wouldn't that trust be best placed with someone who doesn't believe they have the upper hand because they're favored by some supreme being? You'd think one would feel safer amongst comrades who were not convinced their life wasn't going to end when they stopped breathing.

I am not saying in any way that soldiers from anywhere care less about their lives and the lives of their comrades because they espouse a belief in a deity/afterlife. That's what's ridiculous about the whole thing.

If you're deity is all powerful and your cause is justified by your deity... if you really really believed that, you'd not worry about little things like saving skin. That's what makes the terrorists so dangerous, remember? This means that the religious bigot soldiers that hate people who don't say they believe in the same things they say they believe are just fake bitches. Fuck em.

If what it takes to survive is to simply communicate verbally that you believe in whatever, do it. The other soldiers who say the same thing are going to be badass and fight like hell no matter what, because deep down they're not dumb enough to put stock in their professed convictions.

Yes, it was both bigoted and ignorant. Studies of combat show that a bulk of soldiers in a firefight either do not shoot their weapons, or shoot them in obviously harmless ways. The events in a firefight are such, that they've found that the majority of kills are by pure luck and chance, not aiming. As a result, they've found the best way to improve success is by improving rapidity of response, and sheer number of bullets in the air. That is why American soldiers now carry an M-4 carbine instead of an M-16 (an M-4 is a short barrel M-16); the M-4 carbine is less accurate, especially over distance, but it is quicker to bring to bear than the longer barreled M-16. As a result, soldiers in a firefight are able to get more rounds in the air faster with it.

---

Jon Krakauer does an excellent job of covering the Pat Tillman story in "Where Men Win Glory". I didn't think it made any real memorable points about larger issues of life, the universe, and all that, and I had some thematic issues with it, but overall it was a very good read. (Krakauer has a "style" where he interweaves a small, personal story, back and forth in between a larger historical and political story, and it's a very effective technique, though I felt it worked better in his book on Mormonism, "Under The Banner Of Heaven," which is excellent.)

---

Quote:Lt. Kendrick: I have two books at my bedside, Lieutenant, the Marine Code of Conduct and the King James Bible. The only proper authorities I'm aware of are my Commanding Officer, Colonel Nathan R. Jessep and the Lord our God.

Lt. Kaffee: Lt. Kendrick, at your request, I can have the record reflect your lack of acknowledgment of this court as a proper authority.

Quote:Col. Jessep: Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg?

Quote:Jo: Why do you hate them so much?

Sam: They beat up on a weakling, and that's all they did. The rest is just smoke filled coffee-house crap. They tortured and tormented a weaker kid. They didn't like him. And they killed him. And why? Because he couldn't run very fast.

. . . .

Sam: Why do you like them so much?

Jo: 'Cause they stand on a wall. And they say "Nothing's gonna hurt you tonight. Not on my watch."

A Few Good Men

Oh, and might I point out that, historically, our nation has sent the poor and underprivileged to fight our wars, people with less education and more likely to be religious.

(June 4, 2012 at 9:36 pm)padraic Wrote: Fuck him.

See my response; gets me in trouble, I'll wear it.

You're not in any trouble as far as I'm concerned. Well done.

---

(June 4, 2012 at 8:39 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote:

(June 4, 2012 at 8:34 pm)padraic Wrote: Moros; it's as likely as not the CO tacitly approved,as would the NCOs and junior officers. Those people are as committed to conservative army arsehollery as any grunt; NCOs and junior officers can be worse..

Indeed. A "professional" army my ass. Just modern day conscripts from places too weak to support themselves economically.

I realize I was overly harsh here -- the military must make do with what they have. It is unfair to lay the blame of the few dishonorable, even criminal, members on the honorable and professional whole. Though, quite a few issues might arise, predictably, when you have one cultural group as a majority.

I forgot to indicate that I understood a CO might as well be unaware and that small groups often abuse their victims silently.

(June 4, 2012 at 10:01 pm)liam Wrote: It's hardly bigoted, if it was bigoted it would be based on ignorance and I'm not being ignorant about it, perhaps my morality and yours differ greatly but that is no reason to insult me. I don't agree with war, there is nothing bigoted or ignorant about that, I'd argue it's very reasonable, I don't think you really had to stoop to personal insults but I understand you're offended.

I'm sorry but if anyone is willing to kill another person then, to me, they're morally wrong. I don't care if the situation where that willingness is visited upon them occurs, but the participation in warfare is wrong because those who partake in it, by occupation, MUST be willing to take human life and that's wrong. If that view offends you then perhaps you ought to relax a bit.

I know that it isn't easy to get a person to kill another but I don't see how that disproves what I'm saying, surely it is difficult because people SHOULDN'T be killing one another? I know that seeing people go through the trauma of killing is hard and that there is extreme psychological damage incurred through taking life but, yet again, there should be. If you kill someone then that guilt is entirely justified.

I get that you're upset that I disagree with the army because you served but I honestly don't agree with killing on any level and I hardly think that warrants personal insult.

Firstly, just because you didn't use the word 'cunt', doesn't make your comments less insulting. By throwing a blanket over any group of people and describing them all as immoral based on your stupid, narrow, black and white view, you're being every bit as insulting and rude.

On the actual point, if there were no military/department of defence/law enforcement in your country, where exactly do you think you'd be? Fucking dead, that's where. You can sit there and say 'well everyone should stop fighting/committing crimes and we wouldn't need those things' all you like, but what use is it? On a point like this, it's only useful to talk about what is and is not required in the real world, not some fanciful utopia. And like I say, without those things, the rights and privileges you hold dear would likely have been destroyed long, long ago.