This is a little thing that has been on my mind for several years since my own army days. I will not go into any depth of my own views here yet even if I am quite sure that some of you can guess what they are. The question is simply, are soldiers patriotic heroes who make a conscious, intelligent decision to fight for their country and the values they believe in? Or are they nothing but murderous thugs who see a chance at some "insert degrading remark of possible enemy here" killing? Or finally naive fools dazzled by lies to risk their lives for no benefit to themselves?

Soldiers are ........ all kinds. Some believe in "My country, right or wrong!", some are brave heroes fighting for what they believe is right, some are mercenaries who are in it for money and adventure, etc. Soldiers are no more alike than other people.

Do you mean professional soldiers or conscripts?

I've seen all three joachin. Fortunately, at least in my experience, individuals falling into the last two categories tend to leave the military after a single tour. Career military personnel (those serving more than one tour and make up the senior enlisted and officers) are predominantly made up from people in the first category -- a few "killers" may squeek by (usually, they don't like the rules), but after one tour the naive are gone (either they are no longer naive or no longer serving).

murtaug, joachin has been called many things on these boards (I admit I had a similar opinion of him when I first got here). He is a self-proclaimed jerk, but he has also shown remarkable insight. It's an interesting question, one that brings out biases and encourages thought.

[martaug has since blanked his post and I've deleted it. -Tal]

Well, speaking as a civilian American with an all-volunteer army...

I would say 5% heroes or wanna-be heroes (though, actual heroes never set out to be such), 5-10% trigger-happy macho pricks (some of whom, yes, become murderers per se or end up working for Blackwater), 5% fools (who either aren't bright or motivated enough to do anything else or just wanna "blow stuff up"), 10-20% who like the discipline and structure enough to make a career out of the military life, and the remaining 60-75% are men and women who just want a better life for themselves and see a stint in the military as a means to an end. The majority of those who go into the service (I have no exact figures, sorry) do so to pay for college, especially where an expensive degree is concerned (medical, veterinary, flight, law, etc.).

I have to say I have a problem with your phrasing (edit: which I'm hoping was purely rhetorical). My brother was a marine and he is neither a hero, murderer, or fool. He's just a guy who wanted a better life and loved his country enough to serve it for a few years. Your rather negative generalization is, franky, pretty insulting, at least from my perspective (USA compared to Sweden). It also raises the question...having served yourself, which one are you, jaoquin - a hero, a murderer or a fool?

Oh, and [martaug's post has now been ignored ;) - dmc]

DR: joachin's definition of hero was delibrate -- he defined it as a person "who make a conscious, intelligent decision to fight for their country and the values they believe in." In which case your brother is a hero. And you should think of him as a hero.

I don't know what Martaug posted that was so offensive, but I wanted to go on record that I consider this entire poll offensive.

Well...considering that soldiers are all human, there are all types of them. There are those who are heroic, and will run in to a burning building that just got bombed to save a life, there are those who do the bare minimum to stay alive and get paid, and there are those who abuse their authority to commit a crime.

All my military friends fall in to that second category. :bad:

As for 'naive fools', I know of no one who falls in to this category...they all know they're being lied to from day one. Among other things, they do it for themselves, their families, and their country. :rolling:

Since the options are all stereotyped generalizations, this poll is obviously not very good and I can't see how I could vote in it. I think that most people are sensible enough to understand that the army, like most other organizations, has a share of heroes, thugs and fools. But to label soldiers in general as whatever doesn't make sense to me. DR has covered the rest of what I wanted to post.

I said heroes. They are the ones that place themselves in harm's way to protect the rest of the nation from those that would seek to do it harm. You may see killers and fools join the army, but as has been mentioned before, they are weeded out.

Following BOC's ignored question, in some countries people are conscripted rather than volunteered. What about them?

I think soldiers are human, and only human. Humans have cruel base instincts that may truly - perhaps only - show in places where they are allowed to do as they please, where they can pillage, loot and kill. So, murderers are perhaps made through circumstances, propaganda, and the whole psychology of warfare: kill or be killed. Each person has the potential to be a hero or a murderer, and may even be both on different days, so sweeping generalisations like this may be a bit unfair.

I am not of course saying that everybody is like this. It's just a thought, and people like DR's brother deserve respect.

http://www.warpoetry.co.uk/owen1.html

My horrible two cents, possibly off-topic, over.

The entire point was to make it stereotypical. To so to speak force the issue. It also matter how you define soldiers. I define it as anyone who fights for something or someone in an organized way. With that definition anyone who wages an armed conflict is a soldier be it Palestinian suicide bombers, Colombian guerillas or an American fighter pilot.

As with most important questions and especially ones involving human beings there really cant be any clear cut answer all I ask for is your general view. I personally think that the naive fools make up the bulk of any armed force. From my point of view you must be pretty stupid to risk your life or even give up your life, not to mention taking the lives of others, for what? That is the question is there anything that it is worth doing those things for? As I see it there is no conflict today that would be worth it which from my point of view means that any soldier is a brainwashed pawn who is willing to do the dirty work for others.

When all things are said and done you join any armed force to kill other human beings, you can say that it is a decent job and you get an education but you get all that over the corpses of other humans. I am well aware that most people do not view it like that and that you can be a nice person anyway. There is a reason most people who join armed forces are young and lacking in education, they are easier to manipulate and oyu need to twist a human being quite a lot to get him to shoot down others in cold blood. I have a few Israeli friends and I remember one them saying once that he had been out partying with a friend who was celebrating that he had shot his first terrorist. Is that something to celebrate? Was it a terrorist or a poor desperate man standning in hte wrong place in the wrong time?

What bugs me the most about this issue is that it isnt an issue for most people, they dont think along these lines. They read soldier and think about honor and bravery instead of what it really means: Someone who is paid to kill. When I joined the army (conscript) I was under the glamor as well, I was a naive fool and thought it all was kinda cool. The more I started to think though the more insane and even silly it all become. Here we have a billion dollar industry for killing people that employs millions of people worldwide and no one reflects over the insanity of it all?

To end this long rant, we would not have any wars if people stopped being naive fools and refused to listen to the lies they are fed with. Let the people in power fight in their own conflicts and dont let them use you as pawns. I must be the most idealistic cynic or cynical idealist I have ever encountered. As I see it, soldiers are in general naive fools, there are a few murderous thugs and even fewer people who are aware of what they are doing and accept it as the right thing to do but I guess there are people of all sorts.

I think you are missing a fourth and very crucial cathegory, soldiers as victims. It could be argued that it's not quite right when the only path for some towards higher education is going to war. This could also be applied to most conscripts as they are forced to do military service under the law.

I don't think the point with this poll is to paint all soldiers with the same brush. War is obviously hell, and I would inclined to say (or at the very least hope) that people don't set out to the military because they like war, because if they do then I'd be quite happy to toss them in to the "murderers" cathegory. The question still remains why are people still willing to become soldiers if they know they might (and I assume in the US it's quite likely right now that they do) end up in war.

To me they are victims, I obviously don't see that dying in Iraq serves some higher purpose.Their lives are in many ways wasted, whatever US was set out achieve either has been achieved or is showing to be more expensive than it's worth. They are not serving their country there, they are serving a failed policy. So soldiers are not dying for what they believe in they are actually dying for what someone else believes in. If they happen to believe the same then it's a wonderful and happy coenicende but does not change the fact that soldiers do not decide when to go to war.

EDIT: Seems like I'm on the other side of the coin with you there joacqin. :)

2 Weeks ago, I left the German Army after serving my 9 month military service, which every German man who is healthy has to do by law. Of course, nowadays you have the option to refuse serving in the army and to do civil service instead, but basically everyone is forced to be a soldier by law. Therefore, there are not only "special types" of humans in the army. There are people of every social layer, and every type of character serving in the army (at least if you consider the military service, this doesn`t fit exactly for professional soldiers). So there are good people and evil people, brave and coward, heroes and bounders, it`s like a picture of the civil society. All aspects of human Nature can also be seen in Soldiers, thats the reason why I don`t think, you can classify Soldiers into these groups in generall.

Of course, I can only speak for a system like we have it here in gGermany, where everyone has to serve in the army.

Well Morgoroth, I do not think so. The difference between viewing them as naive fools and victims is rather slim close to non-existant as I see it. They are victims but tehy are being naive fools and to let themselves be victims if you know what I mean.

You could say that, however that line of thinking really forces you to think the entire humanity as naive, I don't think that's a big step for you to take and considering your views on religion etc. I think you see most people as naive, probably even most of if not even everyone of us here. It then becomes increasingly irrelevant if they are soldiers or not, they are very likely naive fools in your eyes anyway. ;)

I don't know what Martaug posted that was so offensive, but I wanted to go on record that I consider this entire poll offensive.

I'd like to know why? I think it's a very nice start for serious conversation. The way I see it this was never to be taken personally since it's tries to take a more abstract sociological perspective to being a soldier in general? If you view this thread as offensive I think you have seriously missed its point. I think the war has made Americans a bit too touchy towards discussing war and soldiers from a more critical perspective.

Tal summed up my feelings. The point of the thread seemed to be "soldier bashing" more than anything else.

If this thread is about bashing anything it is about the situations and people who demand soldiers to throw into the meatgrinder of hate. Although, I do think there is a small bit of personal responsibility, people are actively deluding themselves and rather willingly let themselves be victims. It is kinda like criminals, the deck may be stacked against you but you still have a personal choice if you want to turn to crime or if you want to sign up to bomb mudhuts/fly airplanes into buildings/beat up Tibetan demonstrators. Conscription further muds the issue but seeing as it is quite rare nowadays for goverments of different kinds to send conscripts into combat zones that point is not as important as it could have been.

Morgoroth well yes, we are all more or less naive fools I just fight a small personal vain battle to make a few more people aware of it.

Soldiers are just like the rest of people. Trying to make ends meet, trying to make the situation the best that they can imagine. And when it comes to killing, they like it or loath it just as much as the average person.

Now mercenaries are a different category alltogether...

Umm, arent mercenaries soldiers? What would be the difference between a mercenary and a soldier? Is it who you fight for? If, as has been mentioned in this thread, you join the army to get an education does that make you a mercenary? Is it "nobler" to fight for a country or cause than to fight as a profession? Isnt it generally countries and causes who employ mercenaries anyways? Where do you draw the line between what you see as a soldier and a mercenary? Is there really even a difference?

The only difference I see is that mercenaries in general are a bit more cynical and aware of what they are doing and are for some obscure reason ok with it.

Mercenary being a soldier who goes to war for financial gain, fights for no cause, deliberately seeks conflict zones and is not too picky for whom he fights, I'd say that a soldier working in his own nation's army is not a mercenary even if it might improve his/her financial status.

This comes from me thinking that doing anything just for improving your finances is not reason enough.

The poll is highly flawed, so I didn't vote in it, but here's my two cents. My father volunteered in WW2 because he believed the Nazi menace was something that needed to be fought. He did not and does not like killing. According to him, most of the boys he flew with had the same mindset -- they believed in the cause they were fighting for but were not happy about having to take lives. Dad hated the military and left it as soon as possible. Given what we know of the Nazis I think it is safe to say that he was not naive in his belief in the necessity of fighting them.

Of course, there were some people who really liked the military and stayed in because they enjoyed the violence. I met a few fellows like that during my time in Japan. Vicious, violent, bloodthirsty bastards, no question. I do not believe, however, that they represent the majority of military personel, though I do believe they are a sizeable segment.

Then there are the naive who join the military all starry eyed thinking of parades and glory and believing that every war is 100% justified because their country knows all and is always pure. Again, I don't think naivety like that is rampant in Western militaries, but I do believe it is present.

I myself would have to have some pretty compelling reasons to join the military because I would not want to associate with the bloodthirsty bastards I mentioned before, even though they are a minority in the military. Also, I am not keen on killing people though I would like to believe that given a good reason I would have the guts to take a life. That's the sort of thing I believe you never really know until the time comes, though. I hope I never have to find out.

I haven't been in the army myself - the compulsory service here ended last year, and my eyesight pretty much disqualified me anyway - but most of my friends who didn't go to college, or graduated it before 2007, had to serve 9 or 12 months, and a few decided to try it out as a career. In general, I'd say the soldiers I've met pretty much have all kinds. I haven't met any larger-than-life heroes or any bloodthirsty psychopathic nutjobs, though.

In general, I guess they are about as normal as possible considering that a) the Army requires them to behave in certain ways and b) during wartime, they are literally fighting for their lives - as well as any ideals, money, or anything else they may crave. I'm pretty sure I would do a lot of things I currently do not approve of if I were going through that, so I try to avoid passing judgement on privates and sergeants. I try to reserve it for those giving the orders.

A few people have stressed the hero bit but for there to be a hero there needs to be a cause worth fighting for. Is there such a cause in todays world? Is there something that it is worth fighting for and which you can fight for with force of arms? LKD brought up WW2 and that is an instance where even mostly pacifist me can say that yes, that was a fight that was worth fighting. However, the fight would never have occured if Hitler and his buddies hadnt managed to manipulate and fool a generation or two of young German men. The Nazi soldiers fought for a cause they were convinced were good and noble and with hindsight I guess most of us can agree that it wasnt.

If there is no one willing to be fooled into into fighting for an unjust cause there is no need for anyone fighting for a just cause. Who is to say which cause is just or not though? As I see it the world would be a better place if we all could agree on there not being any cause worth fighting for.

I take with calling WWII a war worth fighting. In my view, international relations is in large part the management of violence; how many die, who dies, where they die, when they die, how they die, and so on. Therefore, when tens of millions die violently in less than a decade, there's been a cataclysmic failure of leadership on the part of all involved.

I'm planning on signing up this summer. With the end of my university career coming up soon, I've been deciding what I want to do with the rest of my life. I don't see working in an office as being especially fulfilling, in the Forces I'd have a chance to make a difference in the world. I believe that patriotism isn't in fact an out of date ideal, I'm willing to put my life on the line to protect my country and its people. I also feel uncomfortable with the idea of simply sitting safe at home while others risk their lives. I would feel happier with the prospect of being in danger myself, rather than having other people to do it for me.

I'm well aware of the fact that I'll be asked to take other peoples' lives, but the sad fact is that someone has to do it. If you believe otherwise, then you're naive. While I agree in principle with the "Wouldn't it be nice if everyone is nice" camp, you have to consider human nature. Mankind is a violent and competitive, and always has been. It's why we are the dominant species on the planet now. There will always be someone willing to attack someone else, and to defend against that, we need people that are willing to risk everything to stop them. As far as I can see, as long as humans exist, we will need soldiers.

Well, the thing is, you have just stated you are one of the people who are willing to attack other people. I know that we humans are self centered but dont you find it odd that everyone who is willing to fight is quite convinced that he is fighting for the good cause?

You're dreaming, Joacqin. As Warrior of the World pointed out, humans have been fighting and competing and killing each other for thousands of years. There is always going to be a group of people somewhere who are willing to use force to take advantage of those they perceive as weaker than themselves. That group frequently says that their victims should just shut up and take that violence because THEIR cause is just. Maybe sometimes it is, who knows, but the fact is that the "weaker" group is going to believe that their right to defend themselves is just and I really can't fault them for defending themselves or their interests

Bottom line, war and violence is not going to go away completely no matter how many people might wish it otherwise. Because it is so pervasive, it's going to sweep up all sorts of people into it.

That said, I really dislike militarism. The basic thrust of military behaviour is accomplishment of goals by force. To be completely honest, I wouldn't want the last line of defense for my country to be anything but. That said, military training can help soldiers stay alive in wartime situations, but in peacetime in a civilized society that training can be a detriment, as instead of using civilized options to solve their problems their minds default to violence and intimidation. That's why the one fellow I worked with in Japan has my undying contempt -- he was nothing more than a 5th grade bully in a grown man's body. I think he was attracted to the American military because it gave him an outlet for his violent anti-social stupidity. He was the type who would never make anything more than cannon fodder. Another American military type I ran across was a West Point student. He was the other side of the military coin -- a man of honor who wanted to defend America. He was, of course, officer material. He has my undying respect, probably because he gave respect to those around him.

I hear several stories even here in Canada about people discharged from the military who have a tough time re-integrating into society. While I think that the military should do all it can to help these people, in a basic sense I would say they were probably violent, anti-social people long before their time in the military.

Thats the very point LKD as you point out yourself. Everyone who is filling to kill and die is convinced they are doing it for the right thing. At least one side in every conflict is not doing it for the right thing and most often both. Why then, do we still put the people willing to do these things on such pedestals? Why do we revere the people willing to kill for ideas? We are rather fast in saying that suicide bombers are evil viscious people but what difference is there between them and the honorable man you met from West Point? They are both convinced they are fighting a just cause and in the case with the suicide bombers they are so convinced and so desperate that they are willing to blow themselves up to further their goals. As for then bringing up who they are killing is in my eyes irrelevent, they are all killing what they perceive as the enemy whether that is a schooclass on a bus, an entire village going about their life when they are struck by a few missiles or a uniformed soldier that has just killed your mate does not matter to me.

Who are we, or anyone to judge which cause is noble? To me the entire concept is obscene and insane. If we look at America when have that country ever really been threathened? Their soldiers have never fought to defend their country and loved ones the closest they have got is to help defend allies and yet it is one of the most miliatirized countries in the world and currently by far the most aggressive. What American soldier who joins up can actually be expected to *defend* their country? They might be expected to defend foreign interests but is that their country? What can be noble about expecting to go out and lay down your life or kill for pure political gains? Not to protect your family, not to protect your country but to achieve political goals in a foreign country (I am pretty sure you know my views on the Iraq war but even if you think the war was a good thing you cant really say the soldiers who fought were the weaker part trying to defend themselves from an aggressor).

It is the very fact that people are thinking like you we have the conflicts, every soldier thinks he fights for what is right (if he thinks at all most often I wonder if there is much thought going on anywhere in anyone) and our society feeds that idea, we lavish praise and admiration on people for it while if there hadnt been people willing to do it we wouldnt be overrun by the barbarian hordes cause if no one was willing to fight and die then there wouldnt be a barbarian horde.

I know I am being extremely idealistic but I just want to get at least a few people to see it all for the insanity it is, to open their eyes to the morbid spectacle it all is and how we, you feed it with your admiration and talk of justice and goodness.

joacqin,

You just may be the most enigmatic person I have ever known (at least in the capacity that an internet board allows you to know someone).

On one hand, you are an idealist, always seeking the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, and without exception seem to seek the moral high ground with altruistic intent. And yet, most paradoxically, you possess an unbelievably low opinion of your fellow man, and are extremely skeptical of everyone's motivations (no matter how sincere they may seem), which makes you come off as an uncaring cynical bastard, who doesn't give a damn about anyone.

I'm completely flummoxed. (And the above is intended neither as an insult or a compliment - it's just my observation).

On topic, most people I know who joined the military did so because they were having a tough time finding a job. If you were a college graduate, you could go to officer candidate school instead of enlisting in the regular military. And, if you agree to give them four years, they even pay off your student loans. Some of my friends thought it was a pretty good deal. And for one of my friends who became an officer on a nuclear attack sub who never really had his life threatened in any major way, it probably was.

I also know a few people born with star spangled-eyes who were very idealistic in their thinking if a tad naive. I know of no one who joined because they were bloodthirsty thugs, and similarly I know of no one who joined because they wanted to be viewed as a brave hero.

When it comes to myself I am still trying to work that out. I think the core paradox is that I view myself as a base, selfish, "evil" jerk but yet when I look around in the world I see that everyone else is a lot worse or at least no better than myself. It is just that they seem to lack the self insight to be aware of it. It can make you pretty weary and cynical if you know that you yourself is an ignorant selfish prick and yet when you look around you have yet to encounter many if any who seems to be any better. The bearing that has of my opinions of peoples motivations is that I judge others as I judge myself, and seeing as I view myself in such a light while still being convinced that most are a lot worse than me my view of their motivations must then of course be even lower than my already low opinion of my own motivations. From my point of view you could say that I am the only honest person I have ever encountered. I am even honest with myself and that seems to be rare in humanity.

Or it could just be that I am an arrogant, narcissistic self worshipper who really enjoys talking (or typing) about himself and is extremely flattered by your post. ;)

Joacqin, I think most of us have days that we feel like jerks and we just wish all the stupid people in the world would vanish. However, I don't think that the world is full of moronic, unenlightened fools just because they happen to think differently than I do.

At the risk of sounding like a patronizing old coot, I think perhaps you are making the mistake that I see so many of my teenaged students make. They believe that just because they are smart the rest of the world must be dumb. As they get older, they realize that there are myriad other intelligent people out there who have also had occasion to deeply ponder life's mysteries. I can guarantee you that the people you are judging have no less "self-insight" than you do. Of course, they have no more, either!

Thats the thing LKD, thats the view I used to hold but the more I learned about the world and the more people I encountered the weaker that attitude got. Now I am fairly sure that there are plenty of people out there smarter and more enlightened than me, I just havent encountered many. That said, part of my narcissistic delusion is that I am also convinced that I am one of the few people who are aware of just how ignorant I am and am willing to admit it. Which in its own perverse way again allow me to think that I am smarter than anyone else. :P

On topic, most people I know who joined the military did so because they were having a tough time finding a job. Exactly. A lot of military members will spout off some patriotic BS when asked why the serve, but it you ask them again why the really serve, you'll find out that they like the stability, the (rather substantial) non-taxable housing allowance, the free (!) health care for themselves and their families, and the luxury of not having to go through the trouble of picking out an outfit every day. Having lived the lifestyle, I can tell you that it was actually quite a comfortable way to live. I've often thought about going back in (and when Bush is finally out of office, I just may). For all its inconveniences, the benefits almost always outweigh the drawbacks of the military lifestyle.

If anyone can enlist for military service for either patriotism or trying to get themselves a better life I have nothing, but the deepest respect for them. I am a person who I believe cares for the welfare of others in front of myself, but still I could never join the military. I'm just too much of a coward to do it, and that is one of my great weaknesses. So every single soldier in my book commands the most respect and reverence that I could give anyone unless they've proved otherwise they don't deserve it. If that means they're heroes, than I guess they are.

Nice to see the thread back on track and not getting mired down in my personal reflections about myself. :)

Drew, what inconviences would that be? Uniforms and discipline or that your job would be to kill people? Must say that I am surprised to see you ponder this, for some reason I had you pegged as a militant pacifist. Well, it seems to be that most people think it is perfectly ok and even admirable to make a living killing other people. That it is just a job like any other and seeing no moral issues with it whatsoever.

The way I see it, there isn't a moral issue of soldiers killing fellow soldiers. Both sides know that the risk of being killed is part of the job when they sign up, and if they don't, then they haven't considered it properly. I admit it gets a little more murky if you're dealing with conscripted forces, but to be honest, I can't think of a current conflict that we (British and NATO forces) are engaged in that isn't comprised of voluntary combatants.

So it is ok to kill people if both sides have volunteered? How can you be sure the people you kill have volunteered? What conflict today is between two standing armies where the lines are clear cut and the victims are only uniformed volunteering soldiers?

I know the hippy who handled the paper recycling told the kids to simplify but seriously I think humanity has gone a bit too far with our simplifying of the issues.

I think the difference between labeling somone a killer (murderer) versus someone who has killed another is motive.

There are certainly "murderers" in the military. By that I mean men and women who kill because they can, they probably get enjoyment out of it. There are many others in the military who would (did) pull the trigger when necessary. There are also many in the military who would not pull the trigger unless imminent threat existed.

When I first joined, I chose to serve on a support ship (we refueled other ships, gave them food, supplies and ammunition). I did not want to "pull the trigger." After a while I came to realize it didn't matter if I was handing the other guy the bullets or firing the gun -- in the overall scheme of things it was the same.

Yes, I would have fired the battleship's guns at any target I was ordered to fire upon. I would have launched a nuclear missile at a target if ordered by the President (only the President can issue such an order). I would have used lethal force to protect the weapons we had on the ship (I was in charge of security of the battleship). I never had to do those things, but I would have without hesitation. That was my job as a soldier (or sailor in this case).

Yet, I don't own a gun and am not violent. If you wish to classify me as a killer, then do so. But I would never kill another for money, power, or amusement.

Drew, what inconviences would that be? Uniforms and discipline or that your job would be to kill people?

Most people I know in the military haven't killed anyone. In fact, until the recent war you could argue it was quite likely that you didn't kill anyone.

I know two people who are active in the military. The one is the navy officer I mentioned. He hasn't killed anyone (not surprising as he serves on a sub). The other is with the army. He's been to Iraq twice, but both times handled logistics support, and never saw any action. (He's 38 years old, and they use the young ones on the front lines.)

I know three other people who joined the army right out of high school in 1992. The one went ROTC, the other two enlisted. The two enlisted served 4 years, and got out, never killing anyone, and then used the GI Bill to go to college. The ROTC guy ended up staying with the military through 2000 (you have to give them 4 years after you graduate college). He didn't kill anyone either.

The current conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan is actually the first time in a while that we have soldiers killing people. (There was hardly any killing in the first gulf conflict - Saddam's army melted away.) Not surprisingly, recruitment in the military is at record lows. Most people don't actually want to kill other people, and most definitely don't want to be killed by other people. This is the first time in a generation that there is a good chance you'd be ask to kill people in the military. If you served in the second half of the 70s, there were no conflicts of significance. Same thing for the 80s. (OK there were a few dust-ups in the Middle East and Latin America, but nothing that involved more than a small fraction of our military.) We had the Gulf War in the 90s, but not much killing there. Former Yugoslavia (but only if you were a bomber pilot), but a small fraction of our military, and now this.

I think it is reasonable to say that the reason why recruitment numbers are down is that people know they will be in a situation where they may be killed and will be asked to kill others. For the 25 years before the current Iraq and Afghanistan wars, you had better recruitment because it was much more likely that you would NOT have to kill anyone.

Does that matter Aldeth? If you are fireman but there are never any fires in your precinct is your job still not to put out fires? T2Bruno struck upon a very important issue and another one which I have given much thought and that is that it doesnt matter what your task is in the military. Even if you are a nurse or a doctor you are a part of an entity whose sole purpose it is to use force, often lethal force to achieve political objectives.

The other thing T2Bruno brings up is, is the old "it isnt my responsibility" aka "I was or would only be following orders". Did you have such a faith in your leaders that on their word you would kill, in the case of a nuke, tens of thousands of people? That doesnt make you into a killer as you say, it just makes you into a tool. Now I am going to where for some reason most threads go and which is quite often the death of any thread, we all know them and we all love to hate them: Nazis. Was the prisonguards in the koncentration camps? They were probably not violent men, they went home to their families, played with their children and most of them were probably decent chaps to hang out with. Does that mean that what they did was right? Does that absolve them of any responbility? I know we all love to be in structured societies, I know we love to have other people tell us what to do. To not have to feel that horror that is responsbility. It wasnt my fault, someone else told me to do it and it was my job to do it. It wasnt my fault the missile I launched wiped out a family with four children eating dinner, intel had told my officers that it was a weapon depot and my officers trust intel and I trust intel. On the word of another human being, a faulty, ignorant, prejudiced human being (like all human beings) I am willing to kill? Is that not something that ever crossed your mind? Hell, I would probably have done and reacted just like you and just like the nazi prison guard, it is how we humans work. I am not in that situation now though and from a distanced viewpoint I can see it for the abomination it is and see that it isnt *right*.

Aldeth: The 4,000 American deaths in Iraq has more to do with low recruitment than the possibility an individual will have to kill someone IMO.

joacqin: If you want to call me Stanley the Tool, that's fine. I never passed the responsibility up the chain. I am completely responsible for my own acts -- I can disobey orders, it is my option, and there are those who do just that. I have no problem with the individual who chooses to follow such a path and face the consequences. I fully understood the radius of affect of the weapons I used. A single 16" round made a crater 10 meters in diameter and 3 meters deep. It sent out shrapnel (some as large as 10kg) out from the point of impact at 1500 meters per second. Everything withing 100 meters of impact was considered killed. And we fired nine rounds in a single volley -- two volleys a minute. And that's just the conventional weapons -- we had the capability of launching the Tomahawk TLAM-N variant (a 20 megaton nuclear weapon).

I've been involved in planning and strategy. I understand what goes on to develop rules of engagement and how targets are classified. I also understand the fallibility of human intelligence -- as do those in command positions giving the orders. I understand the process for these decisions -- and what safeguards exist to prevent 'collateral damage.' I also understand how the decision making process in these events can go wrong. Yes, I trust the leaders that make these decisions, but I do not blindly follow them. Those who blindly follow their leaders are wrong. Those individuals in forward positions must assess the situation and use rules of engagement (including the requirement to minimize collateral damage) to meet the everchanging environment. That is the responsibility of every military member. You apparantly do not believe military members are capable of such responsibility -- and for a minority of individuals you are right. The vast majority of military men and women are very capable of making good ethical choices under pressure.

To compare every member of the military to Nazi prison guards is a bit extreme. I am sure there were some guards who were simply doing their job, but far too many appeared to be completely amoral. In many cases they were specifically selected because of their lack of morals. Your attempt to humanize those guards failed, just as it did when they were tried and convicted of war crimes and atrocities against humanity. In this case, you have gone overboard in your example and put a dagger in your own argument.

As I mentioned before -- the difference IMO is motive and intent.

So your closing argument is that it is ok to launch weaponry to wipe out other human beings if your intent and motive is pure or at least if you are reasonably sure the people you kill are "bad people"? Thats the thing here, rules of engagement? What is that? Is that to tell you when it is right to kill? How can it be right to kill? For what did you kill or would have killed? You are claiming that you in coldblood, fully knowing what you did (or would have done, not sure if you are saying you actually did it or would have done it if the situation had arised) and taking full responsibility for your action launched weapons that killed other human beings. How is that ok? How is that something that doesnt seem wrong to you? Were the people you launched (or would have launched) those weapons at threathening your family or your or your own life? What reasons would you have for such a an action? For me the entire concept boggles the mind and yet you think it is perfectly ok to do such a thing. You are even proudly declaring that you full well knew what you did. Are you so sure of yourself and the people above you on hte ladder that your intent is pure and your motive is good? Heck, every atrocity ever committed on this planet was done by people convinced their intent was pure and their motive good. Do you ponder these things? Would it be right for someone who was convinced your wife was the devil to go and shoot her? His intent is pure and his motive is good he would be getting rid of what he perceives as the root of all evil. That is a good and just thing is it not? What makes you so confident that you know better than such a man, what makes you so sure that you are better than the nazi guards? Do you have every fact, have you thought of every angle so you know, you knwo with every fibre of your being that you objectively did a good and just thing when you ended the lives of the people struck by the weapons you launched? Or, did you just kill a bunch of joes just like you who just happened to be born in another country?

Does that matter Aldeth? If you are fireman but there are never any fires in your precinct is your job still not to put out fires?

That's not the point I'm making. But if you want to use that example, if there was a very low probability of ever having to respond to a fire, you'd probably have a lot more people willing to become firemen.

All I'm saying is this: Joe Average probably doesn't want to kill other people. Joe Average DEFINITELY doesn't want to be killed by other people. All things being equal, Joe Average would rather not be in a situation where bullets are whizzing past his head and he's whizzing bullets past other people's heads. However, if there is a low probability of actually being placed in that situation, your risk assessment is different.

T2B is correct in that joining the army now means you almost certainly will see combat - and recruitment numbers are way, way down. The number of people signing up for the army today is about 1/3 as many that were signing up before the Iraq war. To put that in perspective THREE TIMES AS MANY were signing up before the war. I have to think that the threat to them and the possibility of having to kill others factors into the decision to not sign up.

joacqin: That was a much better expression of your argument. And I agree with you. I believe everyone must understand why they, as an individual, would do such a thing. They need to understand there is a difference between "bad people" and an enemy -- the enemy is rarely "bad" and often has very similar values and ethics.

We all have our own set of values and ethics. These guide our decisions (hopefully). A question you indirectly raise is "at what point is another person an enemy worthy of destruction and not an innocent?" I can't answer that for anyone other than myself.

The issue of an enemy is complex. On a personal level, the definition is simply as you say -- someone that is directly threatening the life of someone I care about. That's a very basic and easy to understand definition and probably universal for nearly everyone. A notable exception is a true follower of peace, such as Ghandi who said "there are many causes for which I would die, but none that I would kill." I believe he was a truly remarkable man with a level of courage I do not possess.

At what point the enemies of a society enter into the definition is an interesting topic and what you appear to be driving at. As I said, this is different for everyone. I believe a society must protect national interests. If threats to those national interests are great enough, there may be cause to remove that threat. That is what militaries are for -- removing threats to their country. The threat may not be physical attack. I don't believe the use of lethal force in the face of direct physical attack is a dispute here.

Most of my experience has dealt with the US military ensuring trade routes remain open. Seagoing trade routes are vital to the US economy and any power trying to influence trade routes are viewed with suspicion. Because trade is so important to the US economy, the US Navy aggressively ensures "freedom of navigation." This means, the US will operate in international waters as defined by internation convention. Some nations try to extend territorial waters to limit trade and threaten ships operating in those waters. The US Navy (and British Navy) usually responds to such threats.

Although we could go into history lessons and economic forecasts, I'll just state both the British and US governments believe a collapse of trade would destroy both governments and send the nations into chaos. As such, for those of us who agree with this assessment, lethal force is acceptable to ensure the trade routes remain open. Much of the conflict involving the US and Britain has come about from this belief.

Since I believe this scenario, I would use lethal force to support the US position on this issue.

Aldeth: I can see your point. Firefighters have a high risk factor -- yet they have people volunteering to do the job. I also believe people are more inclined to want to save lives than kill.

Heck, every atrocity ever committed on this planet was done by people convinced their intent was pure and their motive good.

I've done some atrocious things well knowing my intentions were not pure and my motive definitely as far from good as you might imagine. I'm jut lucky enough so nobody's ever gotten seriously hurt or traumatized...I know how one might want to justify one's wrongdoings and for me those justifications mount up to diddley squat. Had I continued my military service, I probably would've never seen combat, not because I would've been unfit for it, but because of my studies back then entitled me automatically to a "special" training (noncombat and nothing to do with intel, just for the record)

Now only thing I can do is make sure that those situations would never come in which I could be the worst kind of person there is and get away with it. I'm not a pacifist as such, I just don't like the murdering bastard I would definitely be if there'd be war.

Drew, what inconviences would that be? Uniforms and discipline or that your job would be to kill people? Must say that I am surprised to see you ponder this, for some reason I had you pegged as a militant pacifist. Well, it seems to be that most people think it is perfectly ok and even admirable to make a living killing other people. That it is just a job like any other and seeing no moral issues with it whatsoever.As mentioned by others, most members of the military don't kill people...and there's no way I would serve in the infantry. I served as a linguist and signals analyst and, if I returned, I would do so as a musician. The military, my friend, is a tool. Under normal circumstances, most of a soldier's time is spent training for missions that will probably never happen. If a politician chooses to prosecute an unjust and unnecessary war, blame for those deaths lies squarely on the shoulders of the politician, not on the soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines just doing their jobs. The Army doesn't start wars.

I am proud to be a pacifist. I chose to leave the Navy after George W Bush delivered an infamous speech in which he labeled several nations as part of a so-called "Axis of Evil". When I realized that we had a president who didn't value peace or diplomacy and who was actually foolish enough to label entire nations as "Evil", I canceled my re-enlistment. I wasn't going to serve under a man like that a day longer than required. Contrary to popular belief, pacifism doesn't actually preclude you from service. Refusal to serve and to fight when necessary precludes you from serving. While I may be a pacifist, I most assuredly am not a conscientious objector. I recognize that war is sometimes necessary.

Hell of a post, Drew. I couldn't agree more.

Drew, I voted against Reagan when he chose to routinely call the Soviet Union "the Evil Empire." IMO, Reagan was scary, he intentionally goaded the Soviets on a regular basis.

It's in actions not in status. If they fight for the country, for a good cause, they're heroes. If they kill for fun and enjoy causing suffering, they're psychos. There is also a number of less extremal types.

If a politician chooses to prosecute an unjust and unnecessary war, blame for those deaths lies squarely on the shoulders of the politician, not on the soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines just doing their jobs. The Army doesn't start wars.

Exactly. The innocent blood would be on the hands of the one who ordered the unjust war, not on the hands of the soldiers. A soldier is responsible for his conduct, not the orders given.

In general, I agree. Still, can't a soldier be held accountable for following unlawful orders, such as performing massacres, ethnic cleansing or other war crimes?

I think something like that was put forth at Nurenberg and the related trials, where quite a few military commanders (and possibly soldiers) were prosecuted. I think there was something about not carrying out unlawful orders, strange as that may sound at war.

First two comments to T2Bruno, very good post. I do not agree with you but that is the best most well thought out argument I have seen for your stand poin. It is nice to see that some people actually do give their actions some thought even if I do not agree with their conclusions.

My second comment to you is, wow, you are the first American I have seen who seems to share my view of Reagan. I was very young when he was in power but I get really afraid just seeing his old speeches. From my point of view he threw the dice with a 50/50 chance of either starting a nuclear war or bankrupting the Soviets. Thankfully for all of humanity the Soviets went bankrupt and did not respond to Reagans goading but it is a gamble that even when you in hindsight saw that it worked was not worth risking.

It is nice to see so many people chip in to a thread without actually having read many of the previous posts, do that myself as well quite often but it makes it hard to reply to things you have already adressed in earlier posts.

I am going to single out Drew again though. Of course it is the politicians who are responsible but it is the fact that there are people willing to die and kill for those politicians who enable them to make decisions about sending them out to die. If there were no people willing to fight then the politicians could have shouted their lungs off about how wicked X is and how we needed to go and kick their butts. You cant control what orders the politicians are going to give the military and when you join you agree to follow whatever orders they do give (and I know about codes of conduct and unlawful orders and whatnot). Also, as I stated before what you do in the military really have no bearing, everything that is done within is done with the aim to kill people in some way. Even if it is only to cheer up the troops with a bit of music or impress the civilians with a rousing Souza march so they will think it is ok to see their children sent off into whatever conflict is going on.

Edited it for being awkward to see people quoting me when I have accidentely left out words which makes my statements something not intended.

Also, as I stated before what you do in the military really have bearing, everything that is done within is done with the aim to kill people in some way

Actually the most important part of my job after the training was to ensure that the guys who were reaching their mental breaking points didn't go out and kill themselves or anyone else, of our guys that is. During peacetime and during war that would have been my duty.

That, and keeping up the morals for those who were in need of religious guidance. It'll be interesting to see what my duty'll be if there'd be a war, since I've gone through the training, yet I'm a civil servant nowadays and I have nothing to do with the armed forces and nothing much to do with theology anymore.

Yet, I don't own a gun and am not violent. If you wish to classify me as a killer, then do so. But I would never kill another for money, power, or amusement.

Splitting hairs here, T2, but it'd be more accurate to say you would never kill another for your own money, power, or amusement. Nations don't tend to engage in armed conflicts that don't have any money or power at stake.

And no, I'm not taking you to task for being an ivuldemonsoldierfromhellyoubadbadmanyou.

I think you understood that there were supposed to be a "no" in the phrase you quoted from me Iko but in case you didn't I am pointing it out now.

Even what you would have done in the army would be to further the goal of the military of wacking the guys on the other side. It would be rather demoralizing to have a bunch of freaked out wackoos running around doing nasty things. Could have a very detrimental effect on fighting spirit.

@joacqin: You're right, you're right. What I'd like to underline is that there's soldiers and then there's soldiers and even though it takes a certain type of people to join the armed forces or start a military career, the group of people that are called 'soldiers' can't be boxed in into a clearly defined category. And then there's the question of a person doing one's job and making a mess of one's life when he/she's wearing civilian clothing...A career or a job doesn't define the person to an extent that might be considered relevant...

For instance, how would you classify soldiers working in peacekeeping, or how would you classify soldiers guarding charity organisation's shipments?

Mostly fools who willingly brainwash themselves to be able to kill a man without any bad coincence. Mostly.

Register: If a person needs brainwashing, they shouldn't be in the military. To call men and women serving in their military "fools" is totally inappropriate.

Of course it is the politicians who are responsible but it is the fact that there are people willing to die and kill for those politicians who enable them to make decisions about sending them out to die.Conscription. You don't need to be willing to fight. They can always draft you. For a man with a family to support, getting paid to fight in a war you don't agree with is a far cry better than going to prison. You also ignore the fact that dismantling an army won't make potential enemies go away. Dismantling your army won't stop less enlightened nations from building up their armies and invading your country. In fact, it tends to encourage it.

You are right, of course, that war usually isn't necessary. Most wars (even some of the worst wars of our history) could have probably been avoided with smarter diplomacy or more timely intervention. Some wars cannot. It only takes one irresponsible, irrational, power hungry war monger to start a war. Unless you consider rolling over and surrendering your nation's sovereignty to a psychotic despot a valid and reasonable way to handle an invasion, there are times when war will be necessary.

Drerw, I don't often agree with you, but this time I do. You hit the nail right on the head. Not many sane people go out looking for warfare, but if it comes to them they'd better be ready or be prepared to lose their rights they are so proud of.

It wouldnt be nescessary if no one thought like you do. Everyone who fight is of the opinion that they fight for their rights, even the minions of what you label as a psychotic despot. It is just like the build up to WW1, no one wanted to fight but everyone kept building up their armies just because everyone else did and then you had all those weapons lying around and all it took was a single shot to set it all off.

Wouldnt it be an idea to not be one of those people just waiting for the next war and actually try to make there not be a war. Also I do find it funny that it is the Americans who are speaking the most about being invaded and fighting power hungry despots, who do you expect is going to invade you? You spend more money on your military than the rest of the world combined and have a largish pool of water between you and any other biggish military unless you are scared of the Canucks and Mexicans.

It wouldnt be nescessary if no one thought like you do. Everyone who fight is of the opinion that they fight for their rights, even the minions of what you label as a psychotic despot.Ah. So, when Hitler annexed Austria, we were right to just let him have it. When he claimed the Sudetanland, we were right to just give it to him. When he invaded and occupied Czechoslovakia, we were right just to let him have it. When he invaded Poland, we should have just let him have it, rather than declare war. When the Soviets invaded Poland and the Germans and Soviets split the nation up, we should have just left it alone. When the Soviets then attacked Finland, we should have just let them have it instead of kicking them out of the League of Nations. When Germany invaded Denmark and Norway to secure shipments of iron-ore from Sweden, we should have just let them have it. After all, maybe he would have left after he got the iron-ore, right? It's not like he would have taken those countries over after he got his iron (actually, that's exactly what he did). When Hitler invaded France, the Netherlands, and Belgium, we should have just let him keep those nations, too. When he began his air superiority campaign on Britain, we should have just let him take over there, too, right? After all, Hitler wasn't really a psychotic despot. That's just propaganda.

Wouldnt it be an idea to not be one of those people just waiting for the next war and actually try to make there not be a war. Also I do find it funny that it is the Americans who are speaking the most about being invaded and fighting power hungry despots, who do you expect is going to invade you?Show me one time that I have supported the US intervention policy. Show me one time I have done this. Supporting the maintenance of a standing army and supporting the invasion of Iraq are not the same thing. Hell, it's not like I wasn't signing petitions or participating in protests or anything during the run-up to Iraq*.

* For your information, I did both.

My :2c:, both on what has been said and the topic subject.


Conscription. You don't need to be willing to fight. They can always draft you.
But that raises the question - Do you have the moral strength to turn around and say 'No, regardless of what you do to me, I WILL NOT fight?.

With regards to the poll itself...


Something to remember is that it is the victors that define 'a hero'.

If WWII had gone the other way then it is possible that the concentration camp guards would have been considered heroes for their efforts in rectifying the 'Jewish Question'. The Nuremberg trials themselved were heavily skewed towards the Allied pov rather than international law. Admiral Doenitz was initially tried for ordering unrestricted submarine warfare as well as for ordering Uboats not to pick up survivors. These were quashed when it was pointed out that the Allies had operated their submarines in an identical fashion.
This too is the same for murderers. No doubt the coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq would consider anyone who kills a member of the coalition to be a 'murderer'. The other side would consider them a 'soldier'.

Certainly I would be very tempted to join the armed forces upon graduation, were it not for the simple fact that my definition of a 'just war' and that of the politicians seems to differ so strongly.

The Iraq invasion was sold to the UK as removing WMDs from Saddam's control. My view then, as now was simple. Saddam allegedly had chemical and biological weapons. Other countries, that were just as belligerent have nuclear weapons as well and yet there was absolutely NO attempts made to implement any sanctions/invasions against those countries - Why? Mainly, or at least it seems to me, because Iraq had oil.

This suggests therefore that the primary driving force for the war was money, which if it is a valid reason to invade another country and kill its citizens must surely be a valid reason to kill members of your own country?

Saying all this I certainly am not against the armed forces or war as a whole within the right circumstances. Given my course I am probably more aware than most of a non-military background of the horrific injuries that modern military hardware can inflict, but even so there are some circumstances that do justify war and the killing. Any culture that considers human life to be meaningless, considers law to be something to be sidestepped/ignored and considers power to be the only requirement for an action must be stopped, regardless of whether their excuse is 'Religion', 'National Security' or 'Racial Purity'


Phew - Rant over :flaming:

But that raises the question - Do you have the moral strength to turn around and say 'No, regardless of what you do to me, I WILL NOT fight?.More like the moral strength to turn around and say, "No, regardless of what you do to me, I WILL NOT fight! Although my family will lose their home, their car, and everything else it has spent years working and saving for to secure an education and a good future for the children, who will definitely grow up without a father when I go to prison while there's only a chance they will grow up without a father if I go to war (especially since only a small fraction of our soldiers will actually be on the front lines and see combat), I WILL NOT FIGHT!" Accepting the consequences for yourself is one thing. When you have a family to support, it gets more complicated. You can't draft 18-22 year olds forever (and the "young and dumb" are, sadly, far more likely than not to trust their government). Lots of the people who are older than that have families of their own to worry about.

18-22 year olds...young and dumb

You are aware that I'm in that age bracket aren't you? :)

When you have a family to support, it gets more complicated.

Certainly my views may change if I have children, but certainly at the moment it is extremely simple.

Would I rather my children grew up with out a father... or in a world where its ok for government to impose its will solely based on its greater military power, ok for them to say you will think and act in the way we require and if you don't agree then you will be penalised accordingly? I would much rather my children learn that sometimes freedom and morality do require sacrifices than them to learn that it is ok to suppress personal opinions as long as your government requires it.

I am very aware though that I don't have children and therefore my views can take the less emotional (or more heartless :p) view.

Wouldnt it be an idea to not be one of those people just waiting for the next war and actually try to make there not be a war.

Looking at your WWI analogy, wasn't that Belgium? That didn't work so well for them...

unless you are scared of the Canucks and Mexicans.

Shut up, you'll blow the whole plan! We import Canadian Beer, and when they get drunk (because we actually put alcohol in it) on Superbowl Sunday, we invade. 47 of the 48 mainland states are neutralized (and Utah would never fight on a Sunday). Meanwhile our allies, the Mexicans have their carefully placed fifth columns ready to take key southern objectives...

Hell, it's not like I wasn't signing petitions or participating in protests or anything during the run-up to Iraq*.

But that falls under the category of political incompetence. It does, on some level make one of Joacqin's points. The biggest dog in the yars was armed to the teeth and really iritable when Iraq thumbed their nose at them. Yes, something needed to be done, but the invasion was the wrong thing (not that there has to be a right thing either)...

You are aware that I'm in that age bracket aren't you? :)I was borrowing a cliche. I did put it in quotes, you know. It is a simple fact that no one comes out of the womb hard bitten and cynical. That takes time, which is why the young tend to be more apt to trust their government.

Would I rather my children grew up with out a father... or in a world where its ok for government to impose its will solely based on its greater military power, ok for them to say you will think and act in the way we require and if you don't agree then you will be penalised accordingly?When Mohammad Ali refused to serve in Vietnam, it didn't stop the war. The only thing his refusal accomplished was the (temporary) imprisonment of the greatest boxer who ever lived...and, unlike Joe six-pack, his family didn't suffer financially while he was in prison. If I, on the other hand, were sent to prison, my family would be homeless within a year. If I died in a war, though, they'd get veterans benefits, SSI until my youngest turns 18, and up to 400K from SGLI (most military members take the maximum benefit). They'd be better off financially than they are with me alive.

Drew has it. Acts of defiance look good on movies and under the proper circumstances I suppose they can change the world but in reality they tend to hurt the one making the grand statement -- and his family.

Joaqin, the world you imagine is beautiful but it will never, ever happen. You're cynical enough to recognize that, aren't you? All it takes is one person who does not follow the rules for the system to break down -- and we have a lot of rulebreakers in the modern world.

Do you think that is a good thing then Drew? That you have the choice of fighting a war you dont believe in or go to prison? I dont think you do and shouldnt we at least strive to change it? Starting with our own attitudes. That ties in to what LKD is saying as well, I actually do not think it is as impossible as you think. Most if not all conflicts are based in not knowing your enemy, in not trusting him, in thinking of him as alien, strange even unknowable. In todays day and age we do have a pretty good idea about what is going on in the rest of the world. We are fairly sure that they do not eat babies in Iran or America. If people start standing up and saying that I will not be a pawn for the power, that I will not go out and kill or be killed fighting people more similar to me than the men who want to send me out to war. Everything starts with attitudes and if we arent even willing change that then the cycle will never be broken.

We are busy erasing the borders on this planet even if some countries are fiercely trying to hold the development back but it will not stop. Instant global communication is here, we can easily have personal relations with people from all over the world. We know that they are not evil, well at least we know if we arent complete bigots. How can you then justify taking up arms to protect the political and financial interests of your leaders? If we in the "enlightened west" do not take the first steps who will? There is no real breeding ground for an "evil empire" anymore. In the places where the people are ignorant and desperate enough for it to be possible there isnt enough money or power. Even a completely united Arabia or Africa wouldnt pose a serious military threat to the west and if it would be about to happen we would see it from a mile away. What is more likely would be that the US or even the EU turns into such a place but if we stay awake I doubt that as well. We have China and they are opening, slowly but surely and have never really shown any expansionstic desires. The world is interwoven and unless we all simultanously descent into mindless nationalism and xenophobia we can overcome this tribal instinct to bash our neighbours on the head with a big club.

We are all people, no matter where we are born and if we, enlightened and educated people can't accept that then I guess you guys are right and we will continue to view our fellow men with suspicion and distrust and we sure as hell cant expect the people who lack the gifts we have to trust us.

If I, on the other hand, were sent to prison, my family would be homeless within a year.

The obvious solution is to stop being so misogynistic and let your wife* out of the kitchen so she can get a job. Jerkface.

*Are you even married? I have no idea.
[/blatant trolling]

Joaqin, the world you imagine is beautiful but it will never, ever happen. You're cynical enough to recognize that, aren't you? All it takes is one person who does not follow the rules for the system to break down -- and we have a lot of rulebreakers in the modern world.

Not so. Human behavior is malleable. If a bunch of damn primates (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060101faessay85110/robert-m-sapolsky/a-natural-history-of-peace.html) can go from 'Me Thog. Thog strong. Thog take. Thog kill!' to 'What's so funny about peace love and understanding?" then so can we.

Not that I think it's likely. I simply feel the notion that a kinder, gentler world could never exist is both mistaken and a self-fulfilling prophecy. And probably not in keeping with Jesus' teachings (but that's a completely different thread).

Do you think that is a good thing then Drew? That you have the choice of fighting a war you dont believe in or go to prison? I dont think you do and shouldnt we at least strive to change it?Absolutely, but choosing not to wear a uniform isn't going to change a thing. Change is made at the ballot box, in the debate hall, through petitioning, and through protesting. Military members aren't forbidden from petitioning the government or participating in their democracy. Military members have protested the Iraq war in droves without repercussion. They've written books, attended protests, and they've given interviews to the press.

The existence of the military isn't the problem. The election - and the reelection, in particular- of politicians who value neither peace nor diplomacy is the problem. The answer to the problem isn't taking off or refusing to put on the uniform. The problem is that the people are willing to elect leaders who will mis-use the military. When I (and the thousands upon thousands of others who fled the intelligence community and, eventually, the rest of the military in droves) took off my uniform, it didn't change anything. It didn't change anything because the problem wasn't my uniform. The problem was the war-monger in the Oval office, a media too lazy to bother to report on the actual facts during the run-up to the Iraq war, and an American people too complacent to actually hold anyone accountable for it.

*Are you even married? I have no idea.9 years and counting, 2 kids, and one vasectomy...

Quote:
If I, on the other hand, were sent to prison, my family would be homeless within a year.

The obvious solution is to stop being so misogynistic and let your wife* out of the kitchen so she can get a job. Jerkface.

Statistically, many couples have two incomes as both man and wife work outside the home. It takes both incomes to maintain the standard of living that the family would be accustomed to. If the Husband (or wife for that matter) were incarcerated, and his income stopped suddenly, it is unlikely that one income by itself could maintain the bills that would be present. It's likely that the Mortgage would become too much for the one income by itself...