Why do people hate the army?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

goliath6711:
Basically my stance is, I'd hate any soldier that thinks that what they do, as important as it is, should result in me worshiping the ground they walk on every day without question. I also hate people that goes to the opposite extreme and says what they do is not only unimportant, but a determent to society as a whole. Because you're both the same exact breed of pompous asshole.

mxfox408:
As a former Ranger, I usually ignore those shit for brains when it comes to the opinions, but when I do respond ill respond with, a big "Thank you for sharing your extreme wisdom" then I moved on with what I was doing, I don't even validate their existence with an irritated response, fuck those pussies.

Syntax Man:
I don't hate the army, I hate the American army because I hate America because of the indefensible foreign policy of the past 65 years fucking up parts of the world and the deregulated banks that basically broke the world economy.

That is all.

Matthew94:

mxfox408:
As a former Ranger, I usually ignore those shit for brains when it comes to the opinions, but when I do respond ill respond with, a big "Thank you for sharing your extreme wisdom" then I moved on with what I was doing, I don't even validate their existence with an irritated response, fuck those pussies.

Lol, I always love people like this with your whole "us and them" attitude. You aren't inherently better because you were in the rangers than a non-military person.

Lol I don't recall stating I was better because I mentioned I was a ranger, but your entitled to your opinion, because that's all it is. Thank you for sharing your extreme wisdom, you sure showed me. Lol........

goliath6711:

goliath6711:
Basically my stance is, I'd hate any soldier that thinks that what they do, as important as it is, should result in me worshiping the ground they walk on every day without question. I also hate people that goes to the opposite extreme and says what they do is not only unimportant, but a determent to society as a whole. Because you're both the same exact breed of pompous asshole.

mxfox408:
As a former Ranger, I usually ignore those shit for brains when it comes to the opinions, but when I do respond ill respond with, a big "Thank you for sharing your extreme wisdom" then I moved on with what I was doing, I don't even validate their existence with an irritated response, fuck those pussies.

Syntax Man:
I don't hate the army, I hate the American army because I hate America because of the indefensible foreign policy of the past 65 years fucking up parts of the world and the deregulated banks that basically broke the world economy.

That is all.

Your entitled to your opinions, and can say what you want because in the end opinions are like assholes everyone has one, but thank you for sharing yours extreme wisdom. Please share more.....

mxfox408:

Matthew94:

mxfox408:
As a former Ranger, I usually ignore those shit for brains when it comes to the opinions, but when I do respond ill respond with, a big "Thank you for sharing your extreme wisdom" then I moved on with what I was doing, I don't even validate their existence with an irritated response, fuck those pussies.

Lol, I always love people like this with your whole "us and them" attitude. You aren't inherently better because you were in the rangers than a non-military person.

Lol I don't recall stating I was better because I mentioned I was a ranger, but your entitled to your opinion, because that's all it is. Thank you for sharing your extreme wisdom, you sure showed me. Lol........

"As a former Ranger, I usually ignore those shit for brains when it comes to the opinions"

"I don't even validate their existence with an irritated response, fuck those pussies."

Yep...

"but your entitled to your opinion, because that's all it is. "

No shit sherlock. I guess they taught you rangers well...

Matthew94:

mxfox408:

Matthew94:

Lol, I always love people like this with your whole "us and them" attitude. You aren't inherently better because you were in the rangers than a non-military person.

Lol I don't recall stating I was better because I mentioned I was a ranger, but your entitled to your opinion, because that's all it is. Thank you for sharing your extreme wisdom, you sure showed me. Lol........

"As a former Ranger, I usually ignore those shit for brains when it comes to the opinions"

"I don't even validate their existence with an irritated response, fuck those pussies."

Yep...

"but your entitled to your opinion, because that's all it is. "

No shit sherlock. I guess they taught you rangers well...

Indulge us with more of your extreme wisdom.

mxfox408:

Indulge us with more of your extreme wisdom.

Haha, this is like a real condescending wonka, except not funny in the slightest. :D

DevilWithaHalo:

mxfox408:
As a former Ranger, I usually ignore those shit for brains when it comes to the opinions, but when I do respond ill respond with, a big "Thank you for sharing your extreme wisdom" then I moved on with what I was doing, I don't even validate their existence with an irritated response, fuck those pussies.

Thank you for your non confrontational response that helps both sides of the discussion reach reasonable discourse. This no doubt will elevate the discussion to new horizons for us all. If only all former soldiers could be as polite and respectable of other peoples opinions as you are. You are a shinning example of the integrity and virtue of our armed forces. Kudos to you good sir... kudos...

Better to not get all worked up over peoples opinions, I usually allow them to get upset, sarcasm sometimes, upsets them more so when followed by ignoring them.

Matthew94:

mxfox408:

Indulge us with more of your extreme wisdom.

Haha, this is like a real condescending wonka, except not funny in the slightest. :D

Lol it was for me ;-)

Being a soldier isn't something that would warrant any more or any less respect from me. I respect people for what they do, not for the uniform they wear.

So if someone goes "I'm a soldier, respect me!" on me you can bet I'm more likely to spit at the floor in front of them. Now, if someone just happens to be a soldier while being generally a decent chap, I'll respect them for being a decent chap, not for being a soldier.

goliath6711:

goliath6711:
Basically my stance is, I'd hate any soldier that thinks that what they do, as important as it is, should result in me worshiping the ground they walk on every day without question. I also hate people that goes to the opposite extreme and says what they do is not only unimportant, but a determent to society as a whole. Because you're both the same exact breed of pompous asshole.

mxfox408:
As a former Ranger, I usually ignore those shit for brains when it comes to the opinions, but when I do respond ill respond with, a big "Thank you for sharing your extreme wisdom" then I moved on with what I was doing, I don't even validate their existence with an irritated response, fuck those pussies.

Syntax Man:
I don't hate the army, I hate the American army because I hate America because of the indefensible foreign policy of the past 65 years fucking up parts of the world and the deregulated banks that basically broke the world economy.

That is all.

Goliath I shall marry you and we will have such manly philosopher like children they shall conquer the world.

Mortai Gravesend:

HalfTangible:

4) the biggest crime committed in a war is never anything the soldiers do. The worst atrocity in every war is that the war was started in the first place by greedy old men who would never fire a single shot. Yeah, I'm putting blame on politicians that don't give a crap, just like a psychotic doesn't give a crap about his victims. So sue me =P

They carry out the orders of those greedy old men. They are essentially their paid lackeys. They agreed to do whatever it is they told them to do in exchange for money. Like any job, except they knew what kind of people their employers were.

No. The old men who start wars can't even spell war, let alone fight one. (which is a very serious flaw we should all be concerned about, but whatever) Soldiers carry out the orders of their immediate superior officers, who give orders so they and their men will stay alive.

Frankly, once the war is started, the army doesn't have much choice other than to fight, because otherwise the army they declared war on is going to attack completely unopposed and steamroll them. Then you're right back to square one, just with different greedy old men. Possibly speaking a different language.

So yeah, still the politi- i mean greedy old men who do the worst.

HalfTangible:

Mortai Gravesend:

HalfTangible:

4) the biggest crime committed in a war is never anything the soldiers do. The worst atrocity in every war is that the war was started in the first place by greedy old men who would never fire a single shot. Yeah, I'm putting blame on politicians that don't give a crap, just like a psychotic doesn't give a crap about his victims. So sue me =P

They carry out the orders of those greedy old men. They are essentially their paid lackeys. They agreed to do whatever it is they told them to do in exchange for money. Like any job, except they knew what kind of people their employers were.

No. The old men who start wars can't even spell war, let alone fight one. (which is a very serious flaw we should all be concerned about, but whatever) Soldiers carry out the orders of their immediate superior officers, who give orders so they and their men will stay alive.

They're still doing what the politicians want, even if they aren't taking direct orders from them on the lowest level. It all goes back to whoever declared the war. It's nonsense to ignore the link.

Frankly, once the war is started, the army doesn't have much choice other than to fight, because otherwise the army they declared war on is going to attack completely unopposed and steamroll them. Then you're right back to square one, just with different greedy old men. Possibly speaking a different language.

Let's look at the modern wars we've been having, shall we? Point out the one where the enemy army would have come over to our country and steam rolled our army. Your country or my country, assuming you live in one that is typical of the first world nations most posters on here are from.

And besides, do you know why they don't have much of a choice? Because they gave up that choice when they signed up. So responsibility for that still falls on them. There's no way to magically sign away your responsibility for the actions you perform when you put yourself into that situation knowing what could happen.

So yeah, still the politi- i mean greedy old men who do the worst.

Not really. People who follow the orders are as bad as the people who give them, even if there is a degree of separation in the orders.

in the end, when all is said and done, even the biggest pogue shitbird in the history of the military will have successfully completed some manner of combat training, far beyond what 90% of civilians ever will. A lot of people are scared of someone else having that ability.

Most anti-military nonsense is just an attempt to rationalize that fear into a coherent thought that doesn't sound weak and socially unacceptable.

Zaik:
in the end, when all is said and done, even the biggest pogue shitbird in the history of the military will have successfully completed some manner of combat training, far beyond what 90% of civilians ever will. A lot of people are scared of someone else having that ability.

Most anti-military nonsense is just an attempt to rationalize that fear into a coherent thought that doesn't sound weak and socially unacceptable.

Nah, that's just pseudopsychological BS. Combat training has nothing to do with most, if any, replies here. You're just unable to actually deal with people's arguments so you post that nonsense.

aba1:
Realistically you shouldn't need a army to begin with.

I'm not sure you live in real life...

AWAR:

Blablahb:

AWAR:
Because they kill people. Also the UN isn't as neutral as you'd like to think.

They used to say similar sweeping generalisations about the Jews, and before that the freemasons, and the heretics, and the witches.... Ussually the accusers were wrong and had no idea what they were talking about.

I won't be as naive as to ask if you can back up your accusation, because all I'd get is an anecdote of some American committing a war crime, and him being compared to all armed forces of all countries.

Yes of course. Because America fights FOR OUR FREEDOM and HAS NEVER COMMITTED ANY WAR CRIME AT ALL. Have I done good uncle Sam? OH NO! NOT THE GUANTANAMO NOOOOoooooooooo....

Also FIY the UN is not a race, or a social group of any kind..

In all seriousness now. Nearly no one outside USA thinks of them positively. So you can A) Acknowledge it and deal with it or
B) Continue being blindly ignorant and live in the magical happy fantasy land where USA is loved and approved and everyone lives happy and free :) except for those muslem terrorests they talk funny I dun' like them.. those French too they are faggets

Man, you must REALLY love generalizations!

manic_depressive13:
You don't think dehumanising the enemy has anything to do with it?

No, I don't. I think unstable personalities has everything to do with it. Not every soldier dehumanizes the enemy. Some rationalize their way through it, some live with the guilt, some are just unable to feel empathy, and yes some dehumanize the enemy. In the end it is the individual person that makes the choice to (or not to) commit murder regardless of what their job is.

Placing people in dangerous and stressful situations? Handing them weapons and telling them it's fine to kill people if they feel threatened? Creating a system where you're almost guaranteed to either be acquitted of your crimes or given a negligible sentence?

So cops are evil too then? I only ask because you just described their job perfectly.

As for discussing the military in this portion... I'm not sure I can because you show your bias in the wording ("acquitted of your crimes"). Do you know what the ROE is? It stands for Rules Of Engagement and is the determining factor if someone will be court marshaled for murder or not. Is it perfect? No. However, I would strongly urge you to research all of the reported incidences that have you in arms because the media spins the story as well. One example is when the injured unarmed combatants were shot to death in Iraq. The part of the story you didn't hear on the news is that the combatants were obscuring parts of their body and saying they had IEDs rigged to explode if the soldiers did not simply let them go. In compliance with their ROE the soldiers shot the combatants, but the liberal media still spun it against them. Another common enemy tactic is to remove the weapon and ammo from their fallen comrades to make them appear that they were civilians. Again, the liberal media eats it up. Don't get me wrong. Sometimes the media gets it right, just not very often.

I'm not saying that every member of the military is invariably bad. I'm just saying that the way the military is currently organised and run, it's far more destructive than constructive.

O rilly?

manic_depressive13:
...You are expressing willingness to go to another country and kill people on behalf of this group of assholes, simply because you were told to. I don't find that admirable. I find it extremely disturbing that many people believe those in military positions deserve extra respect by virtue of having a diminished capacity to empathise and think for themselves.

Yes, they risk their lives, but then so do people who drive while they're drunk. You don't call them heroes, even though they achieve about as much as anyone in the army- killing some civilians.

You can have a biased opinion all you want but at least be consistent. Also, who exactly is a drunk driver trying to protect? The straw man is strong with this one.

That's not dealing in absolutes any more than you can say coming to a conclusion about anything is dealing in absolutes. I have seen enough evidence to draw my own conclusion and you're correct in saying that it's unlikely you will be able to present anything that will change my mind.

But I can because you have stated your conclusion is an absolute. While I accept your right to draw a conclusion that is at odds with mine I believe people should be willing to re-evaluate their conclusions when new or different information is presented. Even though I respect the military, I changed my view of the command that was in charge of Abu Ghraib when I caught wind of the despicable things that were going on there.

Mortai Gravesend:

HalfTangible:

Mortai Gravesend:

They carry out the orders of those greedy old men. They are essentially their paid lackeys. They agreed to do whatever it is they told them to do in exchange for money. Like any job, except they knew what kind of people their employers were.

No. The old men who start wars can't even spell war, let alone fight one. (which is a very serious flaw we should all be concerned about, but whatever) Soldiers carry out the orders of their immediate superior officers, who give orders so they and their men will stay alive.

They're still doing what the politicians want, even if they aren't taking direct orders from them on the lowest level. It all goes back to whoever declared the war. It's nonsense to ignore the link.

Frankly, once the war is started, the army doesn't have much choice other than to fight, because otherwise the army they declared war on is going to attack completely unopposed and steamroll them. Then you're right back to square one, just with different greedy old men. Possibly speaking a different language.

Let's look at the modern wars we've been having, shall we? Point out the one where the enemy army would have come over to our country and steam rolled our army. Your country or my country, assuming you live in one that is typical of the first world nations most posters on here are from.

And besides, do you know why they don't have much of a choice? Because they gave up that choice when they signed up. So responsibility for that still falls on them. There's no way to magically sign away your responsibility for the actions you perform when you put yourself into that situation knowing what could happen.

So yeah, still the politi- i mean greedy old men who do the worst.

Not really. People who follow the orders are as bad as the people who give them, even if there is a degree of separation in the orders.

So the 19 year old kid who signed up because he cant afford college is a greedy fuckhead who wants to make as much money off of peoples' suffering as possible and maybe kill a few terrorists to bolster his popularity? Not to mention that not everybody in the military sees combat. It's pretty much the opposite. you can train for front-line combat, but the chances are you'll never even go to the Middle East. There's no way of knowing where you will end up if you join the military, but it probably won't be "voluntarily carrying out the orders of assholes because everybody in the military is evil"

Chunga the Great:

Mortai Gravesend:

HalfTangible:

No. The old men who start wars can't even spell war, let alone fight one. (which is a very serious flaw we should all be concerned about, but whatever) Soldiers carry out the orders of their immediate superior officers, who give orders so they and their men will stay alive.

They're still doing what the politicians want, even if they aren't taking direct orders from them on the lowest level. It all goes back to whoever declared the war. It's nonsense to ignore the link.

Frankly, once the war is started, the army doesn't have much choice other than to fight, because otherwise the army they declared war on is going to attack completely unopposed and steamroll them. Then you're right back to square one, just with different greedy old men. Possibly speaking a different language.

Let's look at the modern wars we've been having, shall we? Point out the one where the enemy army would have come over to our country and steam rolled our army. Your country or my country, assuming you live in one that is typical of the first world nations most posters on here are from.

And besides, do you know why they don't have much of a choice? Because they gave up that choice when they signed up. So responsibility for that still falls on them. There's no way to magically sign away your responsibility for the actions you perform when you put yourself into that situation knowing what could happen.

So yeah, still the politi- i mean greedy old men who do the worst.

Not really. People who follow the orders are as bad as the people who give them, even if there is a degree of separation in the orders.

So the 19 year old kid who signed up because he cant afford college is a greedy fuckhead who wants to make as much money off of peoples' suffering as possible and maybe kill a few terrorists to bolster his popularity?

You're the one who just suggested he's a greedy fuckhead who wants to make money off people's suffering. I'm just saying he's responsible for whatever orders he follows just as if he decided to do it on his own. Though I'd say to even put oneself into the position of having to follow orders in such a manner might be morally irresponsible and thus blameworthy, depending on the track record of the guys you're trusting to give orders.

But seriously, do keep the strawmen out of this. I expect bias, but you're pretty over the top in your blatant display of a lack of integrity when you pull that garbage out that has nothing to do with my post.

Not to mention that not everybody in the military sees combat. It's pretty much the opposite. you can train for front-line combat, but the chances are you'll never even go to the Middle East.

And? Point to where I said everyone in the military did. Or maybe apologize for the strawman if intellectual integrity means anything to you.

There's no way of knowing where you will end up if you join the military, but it probably won't be "voluntarily carrying out the orders of assholes because everybody in the military is evil"

Oh, more strawmen! I guess integrity really isn't your thing. I never said they were all evil. They all signed up for following orders though. Not knowing where they will end up is not an excuse. If they follow the orders they're as guilty as whoever ordered them to do it.

Sarge034:
So cops are evil too then? I only ask because you just described their job perfectly.

Incidentally, no, I don't like the police. I don't think they're "evil" though. That's just stupid.

As for discussing the military in this portion... I'm not sure I can because you show your bias in the wording ("acquitted of your crimes"). Do you know what the ROE is? It stands for Rules Of Engagement and is the determining factor if someone will be court marshaled for murder or not. Is it perfect? No. However, I would strongly urge you to research all of the reported incidences that have you in arms because the media spins the story as well. One example is when the injured unarmed combatants were shot to death in Iraq. The part of the story you didn't hear on the news is that the combatants were obscuring parts of their body and saying they had IEDs rigged to explode if the soldiers did not simply let them go. In compliance with their ROE the soldiers shot the combatants, but the liberal media still spun it against them. Another common enemy tactic is to remove the weapon and ammo from their fallen comrades to make them appear that they were civilians. Again, the liberal media eats it up. Don't get me wrong. Sometimes the media gets it right, just not very often.

Wikileaks revealed a fair amount of cover ups complete with video footage. There were the Haditha killings where 24 civilians were killed and the result of the whole thing was that the guy in charge was demoted and had some pay confiscated. There has also been a very recent case of a man who killed sixteen civilians (nine children) who won't be tried for two years. We'll see how that goes.

I'm tired of people who justify shootings by saying the soldiers believed they were at risk. They say they were being attacked by insurgents. I wonder why there are so many attacks on US soldiers? Oh yeah, because we have absolutely no justification for being in their country. It's like an armed robber breaking into someone's house and then complaining "The occupant shot at me!"

I'm not saying that every member of the military is invariably bad. I'm just saying that the way the military is currently organised and run, it's far more destructive than constructive.

O rilly?

manic_depressive13:
...You are expressing willingness to go to another country and kill people on behalf of this group of assholes, simply because you were told to. I don't find that admirable. I find it extremely disturbing that many people believe those in military positions deserve extra respect by virtue of having a diminished capacity to empathise and think for themselves.

Yes, they risk their lives, but then so do people who drive while they're drunk. You don't call them heroes, even though they achieve about as much as anyone in the army- killing some civilians.

You can have a biased opinion all you want but at least be consistent. Also, who exactly is a drunk driver trying to protect? The straw man is strong with this one.

That bit you quoted as evidence isn't saying that they're all bad. It is saying that they're almost invariably stupid. However, it is possible to sign up with the best of intentions, especially if you fail to understand the part about your country being run by assholes.

I think you need to look up the definition of 'straw man'. At worst it was a bad analogy.

Mortai Gravesend:

Chunga the Great:

Mortai Gravesend:

They're still doing what the politicians want, even if they aren't taking direct orders from them on the lowest level. It all goes back to whoever declared the war. It's nonsense to ignore the link.

Let's look at the modern wars we've been having, shall we? Point out the one where the enemy army would have come over to our country and steam rolled our army. Your country or my country, assuming you live in one that is typical of the first world nations most posters on here are from.

And besides, do you know why they don't have much of a choice? Because they gave up that choice when they signed up. So responsibility for that still falls on them. There's no way to magically sign away your responsibility for the actions you perform when you put yourself into that situation knowing what could happen.

Not really. People who follow the orders are as bad as the people who give them, even if there is a degree of separation in the orders.

So the 19 year old kid who signed up because he cant afford college is a greedy fuckhead who wants to make as much money off of peoples' suffering as possible and maybe kill a few terrorists to bolster his popularity?

You're the one who just suggested he's a greedy fuckhead who wants to make money off people's suffering. I'm just saying he's responsible for whatever orders he follows just as if he decided to do it on his own. Though I'd say to even put oneself into the position of having to follow orders in such a manner might be morally irresponsible and thus blameworthy, depending on the track record of the guys you're trusting to give orders.

But seriously, do keep the strawmen out of this. I expect bias, but you're pretty over the top in your blatant display of a lack of integrity when you pull that garbage out that has nothing to do with my post.

Not to mention that not everybody in the military sees combat. It's pretty much the opposite. you can train for front-line combat, but the chances are you'll never even go to the Middle East.

And? Point to where I said everyone in the military did. Or maybe apologize for the strawman if intellectual integrity means anything to you.

There's no way of knowing where you will end up if you join the military, but it probably won't be "voluntarily carrying out the orders of assholes because everybody in the military is evil"

Oh, more strawmen! I guess integrity really isn't your thing. I never said they were all evil. They all signed up for following orders though. Not knowing where they will end up is not an excuse. If they follow the orders they're as guilty as whoever ordered them to do it.

Damn, you really love to act like you're better than everyone else. My point (because apparently you missed it) is that soldiers are controlled by a small cadre of idiots and it's not the soldiers' fault when they are used for bad things (except in the most direct cases of course). When somebody is fighting thousands of miles from home in some cesspit, they don't think about "is this order morally positive or negative?" they just want to make it through the next day and eventually return home. There is simply not enough time to sit there and think about whether or not the order you have been given is a good one or a bad one. And saying that by signing up you are automatically agreeing is just ridiculous. As I said, most people who sign up for the military will never see combat. It's not possible to tell where you will go when you sign up and very few people who sign up want to go and see combat anyway. It's impossible to be so black and white on an issue such as this. Sure, there are definitely people who see combat who never should have been given a weapon in the first place and use :I was just following orders" as an excuse for murder, but at the same time, that doesn't make every person who joins the organization those lunatics are in an active supporter of what they want (to kill people) and what the higher-ups are doing. The vast majority of soldiers simply want to make it through their time in the military with a clean conscience, but it's the dipshits in power that use them for evil.

Chunga the Great:

Mortai Gravesend:

Chunga the Great:

So the 19 year old kid who signed up because he cant afford college is a greedy fuckhead who wants to make as much money off of peoples' suffering as possible and maybe kill a few terrorists to bolster his popularity?

You're the one who just suggested he's a greedy fuckhead who wants to make money off people's suffering. I'm just saying he's responsible for whatever orders he follows just as if he decided to do it on his own. Though I'd say to even put oneself into the position of having to follow orders in such a manner might be morally irresponsible and thus blameworthy, depending on the track record of the guys you're trusting to give orders.

But seriously, do keep the strawmen out of this. I expect bias, but you're pretty over the top in your blatant display of a lack of integrity when you pull that garbage out that has nothing to do with my post.

Not to mention that not everybody in the military sees combat. It's pretty much the opposite. you can train for front-line combat, but the chances are you'll never even go to the Middle East.

And? Point to where I said everyone in the military did. Or maybe apologize for the strawman if intellectual integrity means anything to you.

There's no way of knowing where you will end up if you join the military, but it probably won't be "voluntarily carrying out the orders of assholes because everybody in the military is evil"

Oh, more strawmen! I guess integrity really isn't your thing. I never said they were all evil. They all signed up for following orders though. Not knowing where they will end up is not an excuse. If they follow the orders they're as guilty as whoever ordered them to do it.

Damn, you really love to act like you're better than everyone else.

It's not hard when the other guy stoops to such blatant misrepresentations. It's pretty much a given when the other guy's conduct goes that low that I've got to act better.

My point (because apparently you missed it) is that soldiers are controlled by a small cadre of idiots and it's not the soldiers' fault when they are used for bad things (except in the most direct cases of course).

And my point is that it is their fault because they agreed to follow those orders. This is not hard to follow. All your points were irrelevant to this.

When somebody is fighting thousands of miles from home in some cesspit, they don't think about "is this order morally positive or negative?" they just want to make it through the next day and eventually return home.

Which doesn't excuse him. Oh boohoo, it's tough for him. Too bad he put himself in that position by agreeing to be used when he joined the army. Always his responsibility to consider the morality of his actions.

There is simply not enough time to sit there and think about whether or not the order you have been given is a good one or a bad one.

If they can't think that fast they shouldn't put themselves in that situation. But they did and they're responsible for it.

And saying that by signing up you are automatically agreeing is just ridiculous.

Give a good reason why signing up in a position that you know you'll need to follow orders without much choice is not agreeing to follow orders.

As I said, most people who sign up for the military will never see combat. It's not possible to tell where you will go when you sign up and very few people who sign up want to go and see combat anyway.

The chance was there. They were willing to take that risk. As I pointed out, to take such a risk might be blameworthy in and of itself. And they then follow orders and go ahead and do it. So they're responsible for it. Not hard.

It's impossible to be so black and white on an issue such as this.

Your disbelief is not a valid argument. Kind of like the strawmen.

Sure, there are definitely people who see combat who never should have been given a weapon in the first place and use :I was just following orders" as an excuse for murder, but at the same time, that doesn't make every person who joins the organization those lunatics are in an active supporter of what they want (to kill people) and what the higher-ups are doing.

There is no more active support than actually carrying out their orders. Words are cheap, actions show where you stand. I never said they supported the lunatics in the organization, though if they argue on their behalf they're guilty as well, but I do say they are necessarily active supports of what they higher ups are doing. Because they're actually carrying out the orders. Sorry, but you can't carry out orders and disavow the moral responsibility of those actions.

The vast majority of soldiers simply want to make it through their time in the military with a clean conscience, but it's the dipshits in power that use them for evil.

Then they shouldn't have agreed to follow orders from those in power. But they did, so they're responsible for what they do. They're not merely tools, they're people with moral agency and they can't just hide behind the fact they were given orders.

--

Mortai Gravesend:

Chunga the Great:

Mortai Gravesend:

You're the one who just suggested he's a greedy fuckhead who wants to make money off people's suffering. I'm just saying he's responsible for whatever orders he follows just as if he decided to do it on his own. Though I'd say to even put oneself into the position of having to follow orders in such a manner might be morally irresponsible and thus blameworthy, depending on the track record of the guys you're trusting to give orders.

But seriously, do keep the strawmen out of this. I expect bias, but you're pretty over the top in your blatant display of a lack of integrity when you pull that garbage out that has nothing to do with my post.

And? Point to where I said everyone in the military did. Or maybe apologize for the strawman if intellectual integrity means anything to you.

Oh, more strawmen! I guess integrity really isn't your thing. I never said they were all evil. They all signed up for following orders though. Not knowing where they will end up is not an excuse. If they follow the orders they're as guilty as whoever ordered them to do it.

Damn, you really love to act like you're better than everyone else.

It's not hard when the other guy stoops to such blatant misrepresentations. It's pretty much a given when the other guy's conduct goes that low that I've got to act better.

My point (because apparently you missed it) is that soldiers are controlled by a small cadre of idiots and it's not the soldiers' fault when they are used for bad things (except in the most direct cases of course).

And my point is that it is their fault because they agreed to follow those orders. This is not hard to follow. All your points were irrelevant to this.

When somebody is fighting thousands of miles from home in some cesspit, they don't think about "is this order morally positive or negative?" they just want to make it through the next day and eventually return home.

Which doesn't excuse him. Oh boohoo, it's tough for him. Too bad he put himself in that position by agreeing to be used when he joined the army. Always his responsibility to consider the morality of his actions.

There is simply not enough time to sit there and think about whether or not the order you have been given is a good one or a bad one.

If they can't think that fast they shouldn't put themselves in that situation. But they did and they're responsible for it.

And saying that by signing up you are automatically agreeing is just ridiculous.

Give a good reason why signing up in a position that you know you'll need to follow orders without much choice is not agreeing to follow orders.

As I said, most people who sign up for the military will never see combat. It's not possible to tell where you will go when you sign up and very few people who sign up want to go and see combat anyway.

The chance was there. They were willing to take that risk. As I pointed out, to take such a risk might be blameworthy in and of itself. And they then follow orders and go ahead and do it. So they're responsible for it. Not hard.

It's impossible to be so black and white on an issue such as this.

Your disbelief is not a valid argument. Kind of like the strawmen.

Sure, there are definitely people who see combat who never should have been given a weapon in the first place and use :I was just following orders" as an excuse for murder, but at the same time, that doesn't make every person who joins the organization those lunatics are in an active supporter of what they want (to kill people) and what the higher-ups are doing.

There is no more active support than actually carrying out their orders. Words are cheap, actions show where you stand. I never said they supported the lunatics in the organization, though if they argue on their behalf they're guilty as well, but I do say they are necessarily active supports of what they higher ups are doing. Because they're actually carrying out the orders. Sorry, but you can't carry out orders and disavow the moral responsibility of those actions.

The vast majority of soldiers simply want to make it through their time in the military with a clean conscience, but it's the dipshits in power that use them for evil.

Then they shouldn't have agreed to follow orders from those in power. But they did, so they're responsible for what they do. They're not merely tools, they're people with moral agency and they can't just hide behind the fact they were given orders.

There's a guy named Bob. He works at a car garage. A car comes in and the owner, who is friends with Bob's boss, asks Bob to put in a new gas tank. Bob agrees. Bob's boss asks him to put in a specific tank, so Bob does. The tank is put in and the owner pays. He drives away and everything is normal. The next day, 2 cops show up at Bob's door. Apparently, Bob's boss and the car's owner had been smuggling drugs around the country through various means. The tank had a very small compartment in which the police found cocaine. The police arrest Bob and he goes to court. He is found guilty because "he signed up for the job so he obviously knows about the bad things his boss was using him for, even though most of the things Bob was told to do were perfectly fine."

Chunga the Great:

Mortai Gravesend:

Chunga the Great:

Damn, you really love to act like you're better than everyone else.

It's not hard when the other guy stoops to such blatant misrepresentations. It's pretty much a given when the other guy's conduct goes that low that I've got to act better.

My point (because apparently you missed it) is that soldiers are controlled by a small cadre of idiots and it's not the soldiers' fault when they are used for bad things (except in the most direct cases of course).

And my point is that it is their fault because they agreed to follow those orders. This is not hard to follow. All your points were irrelevant to this.

When somebody is fighting thousands of miles from home in some cesspit, they don't think about "is this order morally positive or negative?" they just want to make it through the next day and eventually return home.

Which doesn't excuse him. Oh boohoo, it's tough for him. Too bad he put himself in that position by agreeing to be used when he joined the army. Always his responsibility to consider the morality of his actions.

There is simply not enough time to sit there and think about whether or not the order you have been given is a good one or a bad one.

If they can't think that fast they shouldn't put themselves in that situation. But they did and they're responsible for it.

And saying that by signing up you are automatically agreeing is just ridiculous.

Give a good reason why signing up in a position that you know you'll need to follow orders without much choice is not agreeing to follow orders.

As I said, most people who sign up for the military will never see combat. It's not possible to tell where you will go when you sign up and very few people who sign up want to go and see combat anyway.

The chance was there. They were willing to take that risk. As I pointed out, to take such a risk might be blameworthy in and of itself. And they then follow orders and go ahead and do it. So they're responsible for it. Not hard.

It's impossible to be so black and white on an issue such as this.

Your disbelief is not a valid argument. Kind of like the strawmen.

Sure, there are definitely people who see combat who never should have been given a weapon in the first place and use :I was just following orders" as an excuse for murder, but at the same time, that doesn't make every person who joins the organization those lunatics are in an active supporter of what they want (to kill people) and what the higher-ups are doing.

There is no more active support than actually carrying out their orders. Words are cheap, actions show where you stand. I never said they supported the lunatics in the organization, though if they argue on their behalf they're guilty as well, but I do say they are necessarily active supports of what they higher ups are doing. Because they're actually carrying out the orders. Sorry, but you can't carry out orders and disavow the moral responsibility of those actions.

The vast majority of soldiers simply want to make it through their time in the military with a clean conscience, but it's the dipshits in power that use them for evil.

Then they shouldn't have agreed to follow orders from those in power. But they did, so they're responsible for what they do. They're not merely tools, they're people with moral agency and they can't just hide behind the fact they were given orders.

There's a guy named Bob. He works at a car garage. A car comes in and the owner, who is friends with Bob's boss, asks Bob to put in a new gas tank. Bob agrees. Bob's boss asks him to put in a specific tank, so Bob does. The tank is put in and the owner pays. He drives away and everything is normal. The next day, 2 cops show up at Bob's door. Apparently, Bob's boss and the car's owner had been smuggling drugs around the country through various means. The tank had a very small compartment in which the police found cocaine. The police arrest Bob and he goes to court. He is found guilty because "he signed up for the job so he obviously knows about the bad things his boss was using him for, even though most of the things Bob was told to do were perfectly fine."

Do find a parallel example in the real world. I was ignoring that kind of thing because it doesn't seem like it would ever come up. I assumed they generally knew the consequences. Of course there are other situations, like invading and screwing up someone else's country, where following orders without knowing yourself what the consequences might be is simply reckless. But find me a similar situation where they did something that they couldn't reasonably know could have bad consequences.

And I am glad to see that you agree that in all other cases they are fully responsible, just not in cases where they don't know the results of their actions. After all, you wouldn't do something dishonest like only address one set of situations and try to ignore the rest, you must clearly agree with the rest.

Really though, why is the concept of someone being responsible for what they do such anathema to you? Because it was orders? If you understood the concept I think you'd realize why your example was pointless. Being deceived is one thing, following orders without thinking it through is another.

You don't hate the soldiers, but you hate the system. Military budgets are absolutely mindblowing. A single fighterplane could fund an entire foreign refugee camp for years.

Mortai Gravesend:

Do find a parallel example in the real world. I was ignoring that kind of thing because it doesn't seem like it would ever come up. I assumed they generally knew the consequences. Of course there are other situations, like invading and screwing up someone else's country, where following orders without knowing yourself what the consequences might be is simply reckless. But find me a similar situation where they did something that they couldn't reasonably know could have bad consequences.

And I am glad to see that you agree that in all other cases they are fully responsible, just not in cases where they don't know the results of their actions. After all, you wouldn't do something dishonest like only address one set of situations and try to ignore the rest, you must clearly agree with the rest.

Really though, why is the concept of someone being responsible for what they do such anathema to you? Because it was orders? If you understood the concept I think you'd realize why your example was pointless. Being deceived is one thing, following orders without thinking it through is another.

Not an example of what the other guy was talking about, but a general rebuttal to your entire stance as I perceive it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

"Dr. Thomas Blass of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County performed a meta-analysis on the results of repeated performances of the experiment. He found that the percentage of participants who are prepared to inflict fatal voltages remains remarkably constant, 61-66 percent, regardless of time or place."

This counters your arguments(or just opinions?) that single out soldiers for use of lethal force under orders when the majority of the human race would kill others under orders even in non-combat scenarios.

Shadowkire:

Mortai Gravesend:

Do find a parallel example in the real world. I was ignoring that kind of thing because it doesn't seem like it would ever come up. I assumed they generally knew the consequences. Of course there are other situations, like invading and screwing up someone else's country, where following orders without knowing yourself what the consequences might be is simply reckless. But find me a similar situation where they did something that they couldn't reasonably know could have bad consequences.

And I am glad to see that you agree that in all other cases they are fully responsible, just not in cases where they don't know the results of their actions. After all, you wouldn't do something dishonest like only address one set of situations and try to ignore the rest, you must clearly agree with the rest.

Really though, why is the concept of someone being responsible for what they do such anathema to you? Because it was orders? If you understood the concept I think you'd realize why your example was pointless. Being deceived is one thing, following orders without thinking it through is another.

Not an example of what the other guy was talking about, but a general rebuttal to your entire stance as I perceive it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

"Dr. Thomas Blass of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County performed a meta-analysis on the results of repeated performances of the experiment. He found that the percentage of participants who are prepared to inflict fatal voltages remains remarkably constant, 61-66 percent, regardless of time or place."

This counters your arguments(or just opinions?) that single out soldiers for use of lethal force under orders when the majority of the human race would kill others under orders even in non-combat scenarios.

No, it doesn't counter my argument. Anyone in that situation that does it is responsible. That others would also is no excuse.

But further, what you're ignoring is that they agreed to put themselves in that situation PRIOR to any such influence. It's like getting drunk then driving a car and claiming that any drunk person would crash.

Mortai Gravesend:

Shadowkire:

Mortai Gravesend:

Do find a parallel example in the real world. I was ignoring that kind of thing because it doesn't seem like it would ever come up. I assumed they generally knew the consequences. Of course there are other situations, like invading and screwing up someone else's country, where following orders without knowing yourself what the consequences might be is simply reckless. But find me a similar situation where they did something that they couldn't reasonably know could have bad consequences.

And I am glad to see that you agree that in all other cases they are fully responsible, just not in cases where they don't know the results of their actions. After all, you wouldn't do something dishonest like only address one set of situations and try to ignore the rest, you must clearly agree with the rest.

Really though, why is the concept of someone being responsible for what they do such anathema to you? Because it was orders? If you understood the concept I think you'd realize why your example was pointless. Being deceived is one thing, following orders without thinking it through is another.

Not an example of what the other guy was talking about, but a general rebuttal to your entire stance as I perceive it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

"Dr. Thomas Blass of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County performed a meta-analysis on the results of repeated performances of the experiment. He found that the percentage of participants who are prepared to inflict fatal voltages remains remarkably constant, 61-66 percent, regardless of time or place."

This counters your arguments(or just opinions?) that single out soldiers for use of lethal force under orders when the majority of the human race would kill others under orders even in non-combat scenarios.

No, it doesn't counter my argument. Anyone in that situation that does it is responsible. That others would also is no excuse.

But further, what you're ignoring is that they agreed to put themselves in that situation PRIOR to any such influence. It's like getting drunk then driving a car and claiming that any drunk person would crash.

I would like to take a moment and say I do agree with you that such people are responsible for their actions. However your use of the word "exuse" would imply you mean "blame", and while some does lay with the individual much of the blame lies with the species itself.

I did not ignore anything, in the experiment these people knew they would be delivering shocks, they were informed by the receiver of the shocks that he had a heart condition and finally when the target of the shocks stopped responding altogether they continued to deliver greater(and even lethal) shocks.

These many, varied, average people in the course of a few hours went from not meaning any harm to murder with a little goading. This points to a flaw in the species itself, which weakens your drunk driver analogy. You can control when you are drunk, you can't control your race.

To try and clarify my argument: There is no doubt the soldiers are responsible for their actions, but is there any blame to place?

Bhaalspawn:
I can't speak for anyone else, but I hate the army because I view them as glorified killers.

If we lost WW1 or WW2, we would go down in history as the evil empire that was overthrown. History is always written by those who win, and war is a battle of who can slaughter the most people.

This is because I have no love for my country in and of itself. There are people in my country who I love, and who I would personally fight for, but Canada itself gets no love from me. I could be living in any other country and not be bothered.

I put in bold that last part, because it shows that you really haven't researched this stance.
Let's move you to Iraq! Or Somalia! That could be fun, eh? I'm sure you'd have the EXACT same living experience as you do here in Canada (I'm also Canadian). Or Cuba! Let's move you there! And not the resort areas that only tourists go to. No, I'm talking REAL Cuba. Or how about Greece! Good luck finding a job! Or perhaps Haiti would be a nice place to live! Sure you've got thousands of people still displaced from the earthquake, but I'm sure your living experience would still be the same.

I could keep going.

Look, I'm not huge on nationalism. I'm certainly not all 'RAH RAH CANADA!', I don't really give a crap about the Olympics and if we won medals or host the games themselves. Any of that nationalistic tripe. However, It's painfully obvious that there are far far worse places to live in the world. You could not live in 'any other country' and 'not be bothered'. You'd be very, very bothered.

And if you honestly think of soldiers as 'glorified killers', then you've never met or talked to one. My Grandfather fought in the Dutch underground in WW2. He was also the nicest, kindest man I've ever met. He didn't fight to kill people. He fought to save them from an invading force. He helped save hundreds of Jews from the hands of the Nazis, ambushed convoys, and, yes, shot Nazi soldiers. Even assassinated a local officer in an alley with a single shot to the face. But he would never talk about it. Not to his grandkids, at least. He didn't do it for glory or medals or recognition. He did it because his family, his neighbours, and his country was worth fighting for. It was the right thing to do.

And if anyone invaded Canada, I'd step up to that plate myself. I hate the idea of killing someone. I think violence is a poor man's answer to greater questions. But I also believe that my family, my neighbours, my country and what it stands for is worth fighting for. And I'll be damned before I let someone take that away.

I respect all the humanitarian work you people do, but I can't support any form of killing.

Chemical Alia:
I was in active duty both before and after 9/11, and I feel that a lot of people's opinions of the military are influenced by current trends, but also by a lot of misconceptions and assumptions. Especially when they don't know any military people, themselves.

What I don't understand is why hate on the soldiers? As far as I'm aware, you don't decide what conflicts to start/join/'finish', you just want to do your part to defend your country. It doesn't mean you want there to be conflict, but if there is one, you want to be there to deal with it (I'd hope by being a good person and not making things any worse than they need to be) rather than leaving the risk and responsibility to someone you've never met.

If anything, a soldier can be honourable and worthy of respect even in the worst of conflicts, and they can be dishonourable and shameful in the best of times. If you have an issue with the war being fought, then take it out on those responsible, not on those just trying to make the best of a bad situation by risking their lives.

TL;DR:

Hating on the soldiers because you disagree with what the army is doing is like hating on the road-workers because you disagree with what the council is doing.

I hate the Army - but I don't hate soldiers.

Soldiers are among the bottom rung of society. They get a disproportionate amount of "respect", but in the end, most people would consider the armed services last on a list of jobs. Because in the end, soldiers are like garbage men that are sent to out to die. No, I think they are even worse off. If you consider salary, working hours and risk.

I hate the "support of the troops", because even in this age of information people still don't get that war is always politics; and thus a tool of economic interest. I hate it when people think soldiers are heroes slaying evil dragons. It's maddening that this kind of demagogy still works.

It's serves as a glorification of what the Army does. Which is bad. It probably draws more people to this shitty job. And more importantly, it clouds any kind of objective discussion about the US military-industrial complex and American hegemony. Because indicating that the USAF aren't heroes makes you ungrateful and unamerican.

To sum it up: I despise the Army, but I pity the soldiers.

In general the army is fine, it is where the army is directed that is the problem. Modern wars are not for our interests they are for the interests of the wealthy and powerful.
They are expensive and too big.
We get all this shit about the budgets but if we brought all the troops home we would not have to pay for expensive equipment that goes boom.
We are fighting other peoples wars.
Our army should only be there to protect against direct threats to the country, not some desert dwellers thousands of miles away. Or at least not in the numbers they are currently in.

Mortai Gravesend:
While I don't hate the army I don't care for it much and intensely dislike what I see as undeserved praise for it. They're useful as a deterrent to being attacked, but other than that I don't see much legitimate need for them to be going elsewhere at the moment. Libya was useful. Conflicts in the Middle East at the moment? Not so much. As such I do not think they deserve any respect for being there in a conflict we shouldn't have started. They're fixing up what they screwed up at best.

Shouldn't have started? Several goverments in the middle east actively sponsored terrorism and Afghanistan was fucking led by the Taliban.

Was there a fucking peaceful alternative? Al-Qaeda had performed a terrorist attack on american soil that killed 3000 people, and the local goverments sure as hell weren't going to stop them.

If your complaining about how the war went, than I'll probably agree with you on a lot of stuff, but it pretty much HAD to happen.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked