Are all soldiers like the Nazis?

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

there has to be some pathology involved. that and a bloodstained paycheck

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

true enough
i guess degrees of culpability?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

So all his love for Afghanistan notwithstanding he would lay mines if ordered to.

 

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

 

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

 

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

This is something new?

 

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?

 

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.

 

Following orders and protocol is what ensures they don't become canon fodder.

 

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?

 

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Excellent example.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

 

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:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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 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?