117 réponses à ce sujet

[Elhanan]

I'm sure the people of Iraq would feel differently about you're last point. I have no desire to start a huge argument, but there have been several cases involving American soldiers committing rape and outright murder of civilians in Iraq.

While such actions as individuals are abhorrent and could create more hostility, these are not the actions or beliefs as a nation, as was stated previously. And the percentage of these atrocities appears to be low, while much higher during the previous regime.

As in most cases, it is generally best not to pre-judge an entire group over the actions of a few; friend or foe.

[Elhanan]

I understand you're point and I agree, I simply wish that people would consider long term consequences of military action and that a great many of these problems are fueled by poverty, starvation. We also need to remember that even when we have a legitement cause for military action we could in the process of trying to help a suffering ethnic group or nation create the conditions that will lead to yet another enemy/threat in the future.

I try and leave much of this to the experts and authorities. However, if delivering education, medicines, materials, protection and defense can create stir enemies against us, they apparently had extreme views and hatred towards us in the first place.

As this is getting close to a political tone, will drop it for now and return to the OP. Joining the service is a huge decision, and should not be made lightly. I made the error of doing this as my first time away from home after High School; not recommended. But the experiences gathered over the next seven years were valuable, and am proud to have been able to serve.

[Raizo]

In my youth I often thought about joining up along with my friends, for reasons that I won't go into here I obviously did not and now that I am a grown man in my mid 30's I think it is a bit to late to sign up but I do often wonder about what could have been, it will always be one of the things that I'll look back on and regret. As Elhanan said, it is a huge decision and should not be made lightly.

[Han Shot First]

Since most of the bigger countries military gets misused on political agendas and war for territory and resources my respect for people willingly being a part of it -despite knowing what they're really used for- is low. I don't respect what they are and what they are doing, I don't hate them either, I just feel indifferent towards those puppets. 

 

You're under the mistaken impression that all military personnel support the wars they are taking part in. The military, just like any other large organization, is not a monolithic entity. It is made up of individuals with differing opinions.

 

If a soldier, Marine, sailor, or airman disagrees with his or her politicians sending the country to war, the proper way to express that dissent is by voting for political candidates who opposed it. Its the duty of military personnel to follow their regiment's colors into harm's way whether or not they agree with the politicians sending them there. That is part of the job description.

[Reznore57]

You're under the mistaken impression that all military personnel support the wars they are taking part in. The military, just like any other large organization, is not a monolithic entity. It is made up of individuals with differing opinions.

 

If a soldier, Marine, sailor, or airman disagrees with his or her politicians sending the country to war, the proper way to express that dissent is by voting for political candidates who opposed it. Its the duty of military personnel to follow their regiment's colors into harm's way whether or not they agree with the politicians sending them there. That is part of the job description.

 

And that's what I don't understand about military , how can people be fine about dying or killing for other people's opinions?

I don't get it at all.I mean if you agree , i suppose it's fine.

But if you disagree...war is not a small thing.It has consequences for generations for good or bad .

 

I have ex military in my family , my grandfather was a soldier and he had the best time of his life when he went fighting.But still , today he admits that war could have been avoided .

[Elhanan]

I was in disagreement with some authorities during my service, and as mentioned, used the voting right I was defending to help remove them.

And I did not train to kill for another's opinion; was training to defend folks from others forcing theirs upon them.

[SwobyJ]

You're under the mistaken impression that all military personnel support the wars they are taking part in. The military, just like any other large organization, is not a monolithic entity. It is made up of individuals with differing opinions.

 

If a soldier, Marine, sailor, or airman disagrees with his or her politicians sending the country to war, the proper way to express that dissent is by voting for political candidates who opposed it. Its the duty of military personnel to follow their regiment's colors into harm's way whether or not they agree with the politicians sending them there. That is part of the job description.

 

And if no politicians with any real chance of winning anything, oppose the war?

 

Being labeled as 'unpatriotic' and 'Communist' and even worse?

 

Following orders lock-step has its uses, but the larger reality of the world tends to smack sense into people about it - even if it takes decades or more. And then the shame (personal, national, etc) sets in, and history makes us all look like fools.

 

To date, the only widely-understood-to-be-appropriate-and-successful-in-long-term war in the past several generations is WW2, and even that has many shameful acts made that cause people, like for example my still living WW2 vet grandfather, to still consider the whole situation a mess that should have never happened. Even Germany's fascist rise came out of the results of WW1/Great War, which in itself was a terrible war that should have never happened and is largely regarded to be useless and a waste of life on all sides.

 

So no, I don't respect militiaries or 'the troops'. But that also comes from a lack of respect for any large organization or organizational idea. Heck, I'm gay and I still don't have automatic respect for 'LGBT organizations' as some 'whole'.

 

I respect people though. And maybe cultures or subcultures to some extent. And families. And friends. I respect some of my friends for their service in the Canadian military - but that comes from THEIR actions IN it, not their choice to sign up. Signing up for the military isn't admirable in itself, because it actually entails a whole lot of stuff (from sitting at a desk being paid as a pencil pusher, to rushing into crazy situations to save others' lives, to effectively being a merc for corporate control and geopolitical agendas for resources, etc), and someone who puts themselves forward to be a part of that is someone I'd call anywhere from heroic to evil. It'll depend on the person they are AFTER their service.

 

I don't think there should ever be elimination of military or disparagement towards soldiers. Its a way of life, and often actually an admirable one to enter and embrace. But it also, due to the dominating duty-based and conformist structure, dependent on:

-the country and what its doing

-the leaders and what they decide

-if terrible actions are rationalized away or swept under the rug, or instead admitted, reconciled, and resolved

-the servicemen's culture; in many cases, the line between soldier and thug can be very thin, and honor and idealism is often what holds that line

-questions are allowed to be made; NEVER should it be a 100% unquestioning environment. Orders are orders, but they're also just words told to you, and while more questions means more possibility for disruption, it also can mean the difference between success and failure in small to large military ventures

[Reznore57]

I was in disagreement with some authorities during my service, and as mentioned, used the voting right I was defending to help remove them.

And I did not train to kill for another's opinion; was training to defend folks from others forcing theirs upon them.

 

I suppose it depends on people point of view .

I think in some cases it's hard to tell if soldiers are agressors or protectors.

I remember reading about a refugee camp where the locals had many family member killed , they couldn't tell if rebels did it or soldiers or their neighbors.

Because the political situation was such a mess.

 

I think it really depends on the conflicts.But from a personal point of view , I wouldn't get involved in military for all the gold in the world.

[Han Shot First]

And that's what I don't understand about military , how can people be fine about dying or killing for other people's opinions?

I don't get it at all.I mean if you agree , i suppose it's fine.

But if you disagree...war is not a small thing.It has consequences for generations for good or bad .

 

I have ex military in my family , my grandfather was a soldier and he had the best time of his life when he went fighting.But still , today he admits that war could have been avoided .

 

If military personnel had the ability to simply quit or refuse to follow orders, whenever they disagree with those orders, you'd have an army completely incapable of fighting a war, let alone winning one. Had the Allies followed that policy in the Second World War, the swastika would now be flying over much of continental Europe.

 

In a perfect world armies wouldn't be needed, but we don't live in a perfect world. Saying that war never solves anything may sound appealing, but it is complete fantasy.

[SwobyJ]

In a perfect world armies wouldn't be needed, but we don't live in a perfect world. Saying that war never solves anything may sound appealing, but it is complete fantasy.

 

That's often the thrust of it.

 

As/if the world improves, yes, there is less necessity for wars and armies to achieve goals. In fact, that's kind of a thing now - we see wars still happening, but they're actually less often than ever, and we only see as many as we see because we now have a global view brought to us by technology. But otherwise, humanity has actually been getting more peaceful over the last several decades (when one faces the proportional stats), and instead of military/war being an automatic way of life, since WWII it has been increasingly more of an optional affair and route to take. Not always. But we're learning how to do things like diplomacy more and more, better and better, to avoid war before it occurs.

 

Of course certain nations that relatively thrived on war, aren't as happy to get with the program, but they still have their uses, and some form of strong military(s) in the world should probably always exist, for as long as we are human beings in a world that is not perfectly run (aka as long as we don't have utopia, we'll need wars to some extent, and warriors to some extent; regardless of whether they are 'good' or 'bad' people).

 

I do want to add - war does solve the most immediate issue and threat in front of you, but we've been shown over and over that its scars actually form the blisters of new wars and resentment and divisiveness, that when not given the time to heal, will envelop lands in even greater (if not in intensity, then in duration) wars/conflicts and more death (WWII itself has done this to massive degrees). So when it is done - and it sometimes is very much needed to be done (at least from personal or national perspectives, even if not in a wider human race perspective) - war should really be tempered (in budget, culture, strategy) and based on getting the job done, and not waging war for the sake of waging war. That latter approach makes many strong soldiers, technologies, industries, and governments - but these inevitably exhaust and weaken themselves at some point (soldiers age and die, technologies are limited in scope, industries consume themselves, governments become increasingly authoritarian and often toppled), to great defeat.

 

There's no perfect approach to everything. Having high ideals helps in the long term, but not so much in the mid to short term. Having a tempered approach helps in the mid term, but not so much in the short or long term. Having a tendency for direct and immediate action helps in the short term, but not so much in the mid to long term. Organizations and individuals all work towards their own ends, but militaries are usually more focused on the short (to maybe mid) term, not so concerned about the consequences of their actions beyond how it gives them an edge in conflicts - whether those conflicts are just or not (they'll leave that to leaders and/or the electorate, etc).

[Cyonan]

I give out respect on a person by person basis. Being in the military is not an automatic pass for that as there are both good and bad people in the military, just like everywhere else in the world.

 

As an organization, I'm opposed to the way in which the military of countries often get used. I don't put that blame on the individual soldiers, though.

[Elhanan]

I suppose it depends on people point of view .
I think in some cases it's hard to tell if soldiers are agressors or protectors.
I remember reading about a refugee camp where the locals had many family member killed , they couldn't tell if rebels did it or soldiers or their neighbors.
Because the political situation was such a mess.
 
I think it really depends on the conflicts.But from a personal point of view , I wouldn't get involved in military for all the gold in the world.

A recommendation: read and gather info from more then a single news source. During a time of war, I suggest at least two on each side and perspective. As I grew older, it became clear to me that much of what I had read of war in my youth was biased, slanted, and occasionally lacking of all the facts; some of it may have also been fabricated. Even during peace time, I recall watching a family reunion watching a news program with which they disagreed, but were also discussing opinions and other points of view they had never seen before.

Pls do not allow the media to form your own opinions.

[Jorina Leto]

You're under the mistaken impression that all military personnel support the wars they are taking part in. The military, just like any other large organization, is not a monolithic entity. It is made up of individuals with differing opinions.
 
If a soldier, Marine, sailor, or airman disagrees with his or her politicians sending the country to war, the proper way to express that dissent is by voting for political candidates who opposed it. Its the duty of military personnel to follow their regiment's colors into harm's way whether or not they agree with the politicians sending them there. That is part of the job description.

Following a wrong order means the wrong order was supported by following it. Silent disagrement is irrelevant.

[General TSAR]

Yep. 

 

I respect anyone with the intestinal fortitude to serve honorably and I sympathize with the vets our politicians and media screw over on a constant basis. 

[Han Shot First]

Following a wrong order means the wrong order was supported by following it. Silent disagrement is irrelevant.

 

Disobeying orders or desertion can get you thrown in the brig (jail) in most country's armies, and rightly so. If you want your country to have a military that is in any way capable of performing its intended purpose, strict discipline and obedience to lawful orders are a requirement. An army cannot function as a democracy. 

 

Of course you can disregard all of the above if you are in favor of your country entirely disbanding its military. One that functioned in the manner you suggest would be completely useless anyway, and a waste of money. It might as well be disbanded.

[SwobyJ]

"Disobeying orders or desertion can get you thrown in the brig"

 

"obedience to lawful orders are a requirement"

 

And if it isn't lawful? We really don't have many options there. Conformity kills.

[SlottsMachine]

This thread man. 

[SlottsMachine]

It's a good and important topic in today's world.

 

I guess, but most in here already have a massive bias. 

[Han Shot First]

This makes no sense. When the Nazi soldiers of WWII were charged with war crimes in a Military Court their defense was "I was just following orders" our reply was that if you are ordered to do something you know to be wrong then you must disobey those orders. Please understand I'm not comparing moderne armed forces to those of Nazi Germany, just trying to show that our response(America) was you should of disobeyed those orders.

 

Read my post again. I wrote "lawful orders." 

 

Being ordered to massacre a village for example, at least in the armies fielded by Western democratic nations, would be considered an unlawful order. A person could not use as a defense in the court martial that is inevitably to follow, "I was just following orders." Likewise if given an unlawful order like the example I just mentioned, the soldier in question would not only be entirely justified in ignoring the order but in reporting the officer in question up the chain of command. It would be the officer who gave the order, rather than the soldiers who refused to follow it, who would end up punished.

[Han Shot First]

Oh so you did, my bad Han I don't know how I missed that I apologize.

 

No problem! I probably should have explained that a bit better anyway, as a phrase like lawful orders can sound a bit vague even if you didn't miss it.