18 replies to this topic

[Alyster]

Edited by Алйстьер, 16 February 2013 - 01:40 PM.

[BlackOut227]

I am one so I have respect for some and others I don't. Regardless of where they have fought. They are still people just like any civvy.

 

Also, pertaining to your second option, we have no choice of the wars that we fight in. We are deployed by the government, not ourselves. And most of the government has no idea what it is like to be a soldier. Many guys I've fought with don't agree with the wars we are in right now or at least don't understand why we are there. Once they are there though, many of their reasons change to: You killed my friend, now I'm going to kill all of you.

 

tl;dr Second question is a completely different topic. It does does not pertain to soldiers.

Edited by BlackOut227, 16 February 2013 - 12:18 PM.

[*Anastasia]

Voted 'other'. On the whole, I have great respect for soldiers, and I realize its our corrupt politicians, not the military, that are going around and deciding we bomb innocent people in Libya, Mali, Afghanistan, &c. However, there are some soldiers who fall into the same group as the corrupt politicians. Our high-level generals who got behind F-35 purchases and helped the government lie to the public about their cost, or (while not necessarily my country's soldiers) the sort of sadist psychopaths we see carrying out blatant attacks on civilians, such as those documented in Collateral Murder. These select groups of assholes are giving the brave men and women who put their lives on the line to protect our country NATO hegemony a bad name and deserve to be strung up and castrated.

[PrinceVegeta]

It's not my country, but I do have to live here and I think I'm entitled to my opinion of certain things.

 

I don't hate the soldiers. Why hate them? The soldiers do what they're ordered to do, unless they're willing to just go a-wall and ruin there career. I respect them, However, I don't like how they're sent to places where they don't need to be. It's not their fault, they're just following orders. Now I know that statement can be turned on me. If the US never would've gotten involved with WWI, Hitler would've took over all of Europe, and would've been expanding his National Socialism all over Eurasia and the Middles East, as well Africa. I wouldn't be here...or perhaps I'd be born but into the Nazi world, and my life would totally different. A lot of other people's lives would've been changed, some may not have been born.  But, the US had to intervene because they were a target too. Eventually, Hitler would've tried to hit the US some how, but that would probably have to be before the creation of the atomic bomb, or Hitler would've shit his-self, but that's another story for another topic.

 

Nowadays, with the war in the Middle East, I don't think the US needed to get involved. I'm sure other countries that are apart of the UN, would be able enough to send troops over. I hate how the US always thinks they are the ones that have to "save the day" and shit. They want to solve all the problems outside of their country, but then when it comes to Internal affairs and there economy, they don't know what to do, and then they get all boastful and prideful and want to beat me down for so called "Shit talking the greatest country on Earth" and also for being foreign. I mean, those soldiers have families, and sending them to war, where they could die, over some shitty reasoning, is just wrong. Let some other country do it. Focus more on the economic status of your country and pull back off of this "peacekeepers" thing you got here. That's what the UN is for. The US is not the only country in the UN. Germany, France, UK, all of them have good capability of fighting off and settling the problems in that sector. And if you still don't want more soldiers to die over shit reasoning, from any country, just leave it be or invade the whole damn sector and cut out all the stupidity(Or atleast that'd be my way. )

[Haflinger]

I used to live in Halifax, which is one of Canada's largest navy towns (among other things). Of course they would get irritated if you called them soldiers; they're sailors. Still, by and large the members of the military I knew there were like other people.

 

In terms of virtues, they tended to be somewhat more helpful than other people. This is probably because they sign up for sacrificing themselves for the greater good.

 

However, in terms of faults, they tended to be somewhat more violent than other people. The reasons for that is kinda obvious. Some of them were downright creepy.

 

But mostly they were just like ordinary people; some of them were right bastards, others were pretty decent folks. It's just a job.

[King Biscuit]

Other:

I support the troops, but do not support our foreign policy.

Our men and women in uniform would be far better serving our country protecting the borders as opposed to blowing up brown people.

[Ellis]

It's not my country, but I do have to live here and I think I'm entitled to my opinion of certain things.

 

I don't hate the soldiers. Why hate them? The soldiers do what they're ordered to do, unless they're willing to just go a-wall and ruin there career. I respect them, However, I don't like how they're sent to places where they don't need to be. It's not their fault, they're just following orders. Now I know that statement can be turned on me. If the US never would've gotten involved with WWI, Hitler would've took over all of Europe, and would've been expanding his National Socialism all over Eurasia and the Middles East, as well Africa. I wouldn't be here...or perhaps I'd be born but into the Nazi world, and my life would totally different. A lot of other people's lives would've been changed, some may not have been born.  But, the US had to intervene because they were a target too. Eventually, Hitler would've tried to hit the US some how, but that would probably have to be before the creation of the atomic bomb, or Hitler would've shit his-self, but that's another story for another topic.

 

I assume you mean WWII here, arguably if the US hadn't entered WWI, either Germany would have won or both sides might have ended up so exhausted that some sort of white peace may have come out of it. Since Hitler's rise to power and even his decision to get involved in politics was directly influenced by the terms given to Germany at the treaty of Versailles, American non-intervention in the First World War might have meant that the name 'Hitler' would mean nothing to you at all.

[*Anastasia]

It's not my country, but I do have to live here and I think I'm entitled to my opinion of certain things.
 
I don't hate the soldiers. Why hate them? The soldiers do what they're ordered to do, unless they're willing to just go a-wall and ruin there career. I respect them, However, I don't like how they're sent to places where they don't need to be. It's not their fault, they're just following orders. Now I know that statement can be turned on me. If the US never would've gotten involved with WWI, Hitler would've took over all of Europe, and would've been expanding his National Socialism all over Eurasia and the Middles East, as well Africa. I wouldn't be here...or perhaps I'd be born but into the Nazi world, and my life would totally different. A lot of other people's lives would've been changed, some may not have been born.  But, the US had to intervene because they were a target too. Eventually, Hitler would've tried to hit the US some how, but that would probably have to be before the creation of the atomic bomb, or Hitler would've shit his-self, but that's another story for another topic.

 
I assume you mean WWII here, arguably if the US hadn't entered WWI, either Germany would have won or both sides might have ended up so exhausted that some sort of white peace may have come out of it. Since Hitler's rise to power and even his decision to get involved in politics was directly influenced by the terms given to Germany at the treaty of Versailles, American non-intervention in the First World War might have meant that the name 'Hitler' would mean nothing to you at all.

Instant +1 to this post. That's all I'll say to avoid fanning the embers of the inevitable First World War debate too much.

[PrinceVegeta]

I'm not gonna debate it. Ellis was just correcting me. He was right for doing so. I really shouldn't of mentioned it, it was kinda off topic. But, aside from that, I think KB summed up what the other half of my post was trying to say.

[Jon32492]

This thread is tldr, but I wanted to put my input. I believe it takes a certain type of person to make the sacrifices they make. I have the highest respect for my nation's military because it's something that I, myself, could not do. I don't have the determination it would take, I'm not willing to leave my family for months or years at a time to go to hell on earth, and I'm also not ready to make the ultimate sacrifice for my nation. I believe it takes all of these to be a soldier and because I don't have any of them, they are all better than me. Every time I see a soldier in uniform, I stop, shake their hand, and say "thank you for your service."

 

I take many things for granted that many places in the world doesn't have. I know without the military looking out for us, I wouldn't have them. I'd instead be looking at some other world power wishing I could be there.

 

Also, I don't let the wars or battles we are in affect my view of a soldier. As was stated above, soldiers have no say over where they are deployed. A soldier must do whatever the government tells them to do. So It's not the soldiers' fault that we are in any particular war.

 

One more thing, BlackOut227, and any other soldiers we have here in Invicta, thank you very much for your service.

[*Anastasia]

Also, I don't let the wars or battles we are in affect my view of a soldier. As was stated above, soldiers have no say over where they are deployed. A soldier must do whatever the government tells them to do. So It's not the soldiers' fault that we are in any particular war.

See, I try to maintain this view, but there's a specific problem with it, and that is that while governments may dictate where the military serves, it's the military command (who are, uh, soldiers) that decides what they do while they're there. It's also to a large degree individual soldiers who are responsible for their actions on the ground. So while I would say my view of soldiers isn't tainted by the wars they serve in, when a commander decides he's going to start bombing a heavily civilian area, that affects my view of him. When soldiers deliberately take aim at and kill civilians, that affects my view of them. When a decision is made to use chemical weapons like white phosphorous or napalm or warheads tipped with enriched uranium, which are known to cause significant harm to civilians, that affects my view of the soldiers who made that decision. The fact that you're a soldier and don't get to decide what wars you serve in is not a get-out-of-criticism free card when you decide you're going to start acting in an irresponsible or criminal manner.

[Haflinger]

But there's a corollary to that; if a particular soldier commits war crimes, then other soldiers who aren't involved in those war crimes ... aren't involved. I don't think it's fair to criticize them as a group unless they all take actions as a group.

[*Anastasia]

I never said I'd criticize them all as a group. Jon said, 'Also, I don't let the wars or battles we are in affect my view of a soldier.' A soldier, not soldiers in general. If a soldier commits a war crime, I'm damnedwell going to criticize him for that.

[Haflinger]

Yep, that's fair.

 

Also it's fair that when you get situations like the Serbian army during the Bosnian civil war to criticize them as a group, because well, mass raping of civilians isn't something that one soldier going off by himself can do.

[Jon32492]

I never said I'd criticize them all as a group. Jon said, 'Also, I don't let the wars or battles we are in affect my view of a soldier.' A soldier, not soldiers in general. If a soldier commits a war crime, I'm damnedwell going to criticize him for that.

This. A soldier commits a war crime, he needs to be punished. But I'm not gonna stop shaking hands with and thanking soldiers I see on the street because they are doing something we need and I respect them for that. I'm not just gonna see a soldier on the street and think, he might be a war criminal, I don't like him. Cause that kind of mentality could apply to anyone and I'm just not gonna do that.

[PrinceVegeta]

If only we had someone from Westboro here....oh it'd be a nice chat. C:<

[Haflinger]

The funny thing about that is that Westboro is the name of a moderately ritzy yuppie district of Ottawa. It's the kind of place you see people wearing Birkenstocks and so on on the street. So I always do a double-take when people don't say Fred Phelps but just the name of his church.

[Jon32492]

Lol. Fuck them. They call themselves Christians. Makes me sick. I hope nobody here looks at them as an example for a real Christian. I mean, you all know I'm not a perfect Christian myself but I feel like I'm more of a Christian than they are.

I mean, without the soldiers, they wouldn't even have the right to do what they do.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I do not believe soldiers should be blamed for the policies that send them to war.  They are not the decision makers.  And I believe that service to your country is an admirable quality and worthy of our respect.  But I do not believe that all soldiers are automatically "heroes" simply by virtue of having put on a uniform.  I find it ironic that this attitude is most actively fostered by the very people who treat our men and women in uniform as cannon fodder for their geopolitical ambitions.