The Troops = Bad? (surely killing is wrong)

[TheStatutoryApe]

I have known several people who have gone into the military. None entered the military for the purpose of killing people. Most entered the military because they knew that they would receive training and education that would help them once they got out. Also, to varying degrees, they wished to serve their country. Before you say that "'serve your country' means killing" the vast majority of the people I know who went into the military never killed anyone neither directly nor indirectly. They few people I know who did go to war are quite troubled over what they did. They have consciences. They are not murderers.

Edit: Almost forgot...
When people pray for soldiers its not praying for them to kill people but to be safe and come home alive. When people praise soldiers its because they are doing a difficult job where they are putting their lives on the line theoretically because they are protecting us at home and/or the people of other countries. Very very few people praise soldiers for killing. Most people would much prefer that the 'enemy' lay down their arms and surrender. And if that were to happen, if soldiers went to a country and the military there simply surrendered, I am quite sure that you would see the soldiers receiving just as much if not more praise for ending a conflict without loss of life.

The term "volunteer" is loaded.

I've not met a single person who went into the military because they had no other options available. They may have had few options that were quite as good but never a lack of options. And while the military will take most people they actually put most of their resources towards recruiting intelligent and well educated individuals who will be far more valuable to them than grunts.

 

[maze]

I don't understand why everyone is all about supporting the troops

These people kill other people
I believe killing is wrong, also war is wrong...

It takes a lot of balls to actually take concepts to their logical conclusion come out with a viewpoint like this, especially in the current culture of the US. I don't agree with your view, but I think to really refute it, I would have to have to fall back on an ends-justify-the-means type of argument.

There is considerable precedent for your views in religion, surprisingly. The story of Jesus says to turn the other cheek. The story of the past lives of the Buddha have hundreds of examples where the Buddha sacrifices his life to attackers or evildoers. For example, one story goes that the Buddha was a rabbit being hunted by a tigress, and instead of running he just stood there and intentionally let himself be eaten. In another story of past lives, a guy came and robbed the Buddha, and after the guy was done robbing, the Buddha willingly gave the guy his house, all his worldly posessions, and his wife (it actually says this!), then went out and lived as a beggar.

 

[Hurkyl]

This sounds like an excellent reason to believe that no one should ever drop a bomb. No single person ever has all the facts about anything, much less a bombardier in the belly of an airplane.

Unlike every other human organization (companies, universities), the militaries...

These are sort of contradictory points of view. Rambo gets to fight like an individual, but the USAF doesn't.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Since those two statements contradict each other, what you are really saying here is that you are confused and/or have not thought the issue through.

Good point.

Another point that he hasn't thought through is that if it weren't for the US and UK military that he despises, he'd be writing this in German. Of course, that assumes that he's not Jewish, or Roma, or Eastern European, or... In that case, if he was very, very lucky, he might be a slave laborer or subject of medical experiments somewhere, but more likely he'd be six feet under, his skin used to make lampshades.

 

[ThomasT]

Most wars worldwide lack good motivation, and ours are no different.

What are the actual motivational factors associated with initiating any mortal combat? What's the real reason the USA invaded Iraq?

 

[Moridin]

The moral rationale here is that when you are in your normal clothes, going out and killing someone is deeply immoral, but if you dress up in a green costume and travel to another country, then mass killings is the highest virtue and you are awarded medals for it. In the madness that is the state, this is a reasonable position.

 

[Moridin]

Good point.

Another point that he hasn't thought through is that if it weren't for the US and UK military that he despises, he'd be writing this in German. Of course, that assumes that he's not Jewish, or Roma, or Eastern European, or... In that case, if he was very, very lucky, he might be a slave laborer or subject of medical experiments somewhere, but more likely he'd be six feet under, his skin used to make lampshades.

This is of course pure nonsense. If the government alliances prior to WWI had not existed, there probably would not have been a WWII in the first place. Furthermore, the lampshade story is a myth perpetrated by Holocaust deniers in order to subvert and undermine the historical fact of the Holocaust.

 

[Hurkyl]

The moral rationale here is that when you are in your normal clothes, going out and killing someone is deeply immoral, but if you dress up in a green costume and travel to another country, then mass killings is the highest virtue and you are awarded medals for it. In the madness that is the state, this is a reasonable position.

Funny, I don't recall anyone talking about that before you did just now.

 

[Moridin]

Funny, I don't recall anyone talking about that before you did just now.

The opening post clearly points out the contrast between 'killing in general' and 'war as justified'?

"It just all seems so hypocritical. Hoping our side kills the other side... And yet teaching 'violence is wrong'. We are using violence on a mass scale and NOT as last resort..."

 

[wajed]

You realize it's not like everyone in the army took a vote and decided to invade Iraq? Blame the people who made the decision, not the people who have to carry it out

Totally wrong,
its like they are gangsters, and they do whatever the boss says..
Because they are doing something GOOD not something BAD, and since they are doing something GOOD, they should know really enough about what they are doing.
They are human beings.. they can think and decide.. if they can`t decide they can ask for help.. if they got the wrong information then its not their problem.. but also its not the "Iraqi who is getting his family bombed" problem..

that Iraqi can`t think like "Media in the USA is biased, he killed my daughter, my son, my wife, and my parents.. but its just because of the biased media there" its really not practical to expect any human being to think this way..

So, yeah.. its biased media.. so I don`t blame many of the soldiers.. but I also don`t blame their opponents.

It's not so cut and dry. For the most part, US/UK soldiers do not plant roadside bombs or IED's. They generally do not shoot unless they come under fire. On the other hand, al Qaida and Taliban forces have massacred civilians intentionally, whereas US/UK/allies forces seem to do it unintentionally.

Sorry, wrong information.
Taliban is not an international force/movementary. so they have no work outside pakistan-Afgh.
Qaida is.

And don`t only blame these people. Why? because everyone has participated.
Some don`t even bother theirselves to spend some time showing the truth to others.. (which is important, and can help stop the fighting)
The troops DO kill.. and many times for silly reasons.. but anyway let's talk in general..
The Qaida DO kill..and many times because of the US politics...but in general.. yeah they DO kill..
Those who command the troops to go and kill.. SURE, they are the most guilty of these..

However, we know in some cases, a limited number of US and UK troops have intentionally brutalized and killed innocent people.

Can you please suggest a scenario of how you`d know the truth?
all you get your information from is "CNN" "YAHOO" "MSN" "NEW YORK TIMES"..
HOW do you know what really happens there?

I'm opposed to war, but that doesn't change that fact that if happens. I hope it ends quickly.

If one feels strongly about, join an NGO or other humanitarian group, and serve in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan.

I hope you understand you just sacrifice your life by big amount doing this..
you may get hit by a US shelter..
a UK shelter..
other forces shelter..
Resistence shelter..
Terrorists shelter..
THATS HOW IRAQI PEOPLE LIVE.

 

[Vanadium 50]

This is of course pure nonsense. If the government alliances prior to WWI had not existed, there probably would not have been a WWII in the first place.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Why is this relevant? The OP is arguing that killing is wrong, period, and therefore having a military is wrong, period. The historic conditions that led to war don't factor into his position.

 

[Cyrus]

Totally wrong,
its like they are gangsters, and they do whatever the boss says..
Because they are doing something GOOD not something BAD, and since they are doing something GOOD, they should know really enough about what they are doing.
They are human beings.. they can think and decide.. if they can`t decide they can ask for help.. if they got the wrong information then its not their problem.. but also its not the "Iraqi who is getting his family bombed" problem..

that Iraqi can`t think like "Media in the USA is biased, he killed my daughter, my son, my wife, and my parents.. but its just because of the biased media there" its really not practical to expect any human being to think this way..

So, yeah.. its biased media.. so I don`t blame many of the soldiers.. but I also don`t blame their opponents.
Sorry, wrong information.
Taliban is not an international force/movementary. so they have no work outside pakistan-Afgh.
Qaida is.

And don`t only blame these people. Why? because everyone has participated.
Some don`t even bother theirselves to spend some time showing the truth to others.. (which is important, and can help stop the fighting)
The troops DO kill.. and many times for silly reasons.. but anyway let's talk in general..
The Qaida DO kill..and many times because of the US politics...but in general.. yeah they DO kill..
Those who command the troops to go and kill.. SURE, they are the most guilty of these..Can you please suggest a scenario of how you`d know the truth?
all you get your information from is "CNN" "YAHOO" "MSN" "NEW YORK TIMES"..
HOW do you know what really happens there?I hope you understand you just sacrifice your life by big amount doing this..
you may get hit by a US shelter..
a UK shelter..
other forces shelter..
Resistence shelter..
Terrorists shelter..
THATS HOW IRAQI PEOPLE LIVE.

Take a chill pill. I can hear your screaming all the way from Egypt.

 

[drizzle]

Take a chill pill. I can hear your screaming all the way from Egypt.

well, he’s obviously trying to tell something you [all] won’t see or hear in your media!

 

[turbo]

Perhaps, perhaps not. Why is this relevant? The OP is arguing that killing is wrong, period, and therefore having a military is wrong, period. The historic conditions that led to war don't factor into his position.

Yes, killing is wrong, unless there is a strong motivation otherwise (to prevent more killing, for instance), but sometimes it is necessary. Many years back, our Department of War got a PC name-change to the Department of Defense, but guess what? Our idiotic VP and his sock-puppet "W" went ahead and started a war "just because" and killed, wounded and displaced more people than we will ever know. We should have a military force for the defense of the country, but it certainly does not need to be on the order of magnitude of the current military, nor should it ever be employed in acts of senseless aggression (murder/mayhem) like the the attacks on the Iraqi people. The Kurds may be able to consolidate some gains eventually, and perhaps the Sunnis and Shiites might come to an uneasy truce, but the Iraqi Christians (who did OK under Saddam) may never be able to return and live safely in Iraq. The secular Iraq of 10 years ago may never re-emerge in a country so splintered and brutalized. Thanks, neo-cons.

 

[Cyrus]

well, he’s obviously trying to tell something you [all] won’t see or hear in your media!

Really, do you watch my media to know this, or are you just talking for the sake of talking?

 

[Cyrus]

Im curious as to why so many posting here think killing is wrong. I don't. There are many situations in which I'd want another person dead.

 

[drizzle]

Really, do you watch my media to know this, or ..blah blah

if it’s other than [the western media], please link some


FYI: this isn’t posted for you personally, I said ALL

 

[drizzle]

There are many situations in which I'd want another person dead.

 

[Cyrus]

if it’s other than [the western media], please link someFYI: this isn’t posted for you personally, I said ALL

You said he is posting something (nonsense in this case) that 'we' don't hear in our media. Now, show me what exactly we 'don't hear'. I want you to find something written in a non US press that cannot be found in a US paper.

Otherwise, stop talking out of ignorance. (Another one of my pet peeves are baseless idiotic generaliztions about Americans. If you make them, I'm not going to be nice in my posts to you so you probably want to think long and hard before posting such things and make sure you can back them up.)

 

[JaredJames]

Just out of curiosity, does the original poster think Bin Laden should be allowed to live? I mean seriously, if you had family in the WTC on September 11th I very much doubt your reaction would be "bring him to the US and give him a fair trial". If you had family in the London on July 7th I very much doubt your reaction would be "bring him to the UK and give him a fair trial". Unfortunately, our government does that. I think any person who strives to take a life/multiple lives should be hanged.
Was hijacking several civilian aircraft and killing all those people justified? These people are mad (the extremists not the iraqis in general, I'm not that ignorant before someone brings it up). They have taken their religion so seriously, that moving forward has become a 'corruption of their ways' by the western world. And so because of that, they have taken a very 'reasonable stance' that everyone in the west who doesn't support them must die.

The OP seems contradictory, 'we should have military but only as a last resort to defend the country'. Now I don't want to point out the flaming obvious here, but how would you go about defending off an attacking force (attempting to kill your people) without killing them? Set up a nice road block and hope it does the trick? Brick up the Channel Tunnel and hope they don't remember boats? Or failing all else, strap a nice big sign to the cliffs at Dover saying "if you attack, we'll have no choice but to get really, really angry"? Honestly, I would rather see British troops wade across the English channel and take on an attacking force in an already conquered (yep, you can see where this is going) France than let it get to our borders and do even more damage, endangering more innocent lives. The UK/US and most other militaries don't just randomly kill. They only go after the people shooting at them. It is inevitable that some civilians will end up in the firing line, it's just a case of attempting to limit the collateral damage. They provide medical care for the 'bad guys' and 'good guys' unconditionally. That is the difference between our military and groups like the Taliban, who take a stance of just kill the enemy, full stop. The people in the UK military decide to be there, they are not forced into it. That is FACT. They choose to be there, they are trained to do a job. The Taliban's 'freedom fighters' are no more than a bunch of brainwashed idiots who take religion far too seriously. And before anyone says they aren't brainwashed, last time I checked there aren't suicide bombers in the UK military expecting a (somewhat random) number of virgins when they die. And if you still think these people aren't brainwashed, why is it that they never question "why, if it's so honourable to die and you get so much on doing so, don't people like Bin Laden 'sacrifice' themselves (blow themselves up in other words)?".
So as far as killing goes, I take Cyrus' stance of "There are many situations in which I'd want another person dead.".

 

[drizzle]

You said he is posting something (nonsense in this case) that 'we' don't hear in our media. Now, show me what exactly we 'don't hear'. I want you to find something written in a non US press that cannot be found in a US paper...

what is this? sure you’ll get the same news [in your media] but facts will be [twisted] to serve political purposes, I would suggest you watch Alljazerah English channel for the middle east tragedy, and find yourself how it’s different!
my point is you [the westerners] should listen to the others before judging them [as the bad guys] and the best way is to hear directly from them [their media].

 

[JaredJames]

what is this? sure you’ll get the same news [in your media] but facts will be [twisted] to serve political purposes, I would suggest you watch Alljazerah English channel for the middle east tragedy, and find yourself how it’s different!
my point is you [the westerners] should listen to the others before judging them [as the bad guys] and the best way is to hear directly from them [their media].

So our media is corrupted for political purposes, to gain support for our cause, but theirs isn't. Theirs is pure news from an unbiased viewpoint? I don't think so.

Oh come on. They are going to want to make us look worse than we are as much as we want to make us look better than we are.

 

[wajed]

"Take a chill pill. I can hear your screaming all the way from Egypt."
Its not yelling, I`m just stressing on some points.
I hope you have fun in Egypt ;)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

what is this? sure you’ll get the same news [in your media] but facts will be [twisted] to serve political purposes, I would suggest you watch Alljazerah English channel for the middle east tragedy, and find yourself how it’s different!
my point is you [the westerners] should listen to the others before judging them [as the bad guys] and the best way is to hear directly from them [their media].

In the US there are many many news agencies. They all have different perspectives and political slants. Some try rather hard to be impartial. AP is a US based agency with affiliates all over the world. NPR (US National Public Radio) is considered to have a slant to the left, and that's the media funded by our government even. We get the BBC here and agencies here often reprint their stories as well as Reuters. Our news agencies even reprint stories from Alljazerah and many other agencies which are commonly believed to be heavily slanted politically for their audience in other countries. Just because you hear bad things about Fox doesn't mean that all western and american media are like this.

 

[wajed]

"So our media is corrupted for political purposes, to gain support for our cause, but theirs isn't. Theirs is pure news from an unbiased viewpoint.

Oh come on. They are going to want to make us look worse than we are as much as we want to make us look better than we are. "

So, me and you, simply can watch both and determine which would make more sense..
Not that by doing this you can know which is biased and which is not, but you surely can watch Aljazera in stead of CNN every while and so..
Or, if you care to know which shows more facts than biased news, do some random comparisons.. and by time u`ll be able to know which news make more sense.

BTW, if you watch a channel like Alarabiya, you won`t see any real world difference than what you watch on CNN, because its funded by Americans; and many, many, many other channels will be the same... it looks like some american parties are doing something wrong and trying to hide/twist the facts.

 

[drizzle]

So our media is corrupted for political purposes, to gain support for our cause, but theirs isn't. Theirs is pure news from an unbiased viewpoint? I don't think so.

Oh come on. They are going to want to make us look worse than we are as much as we want to make us look better than we are.

I hope this reveals my point, I used to hate Jews by any means, even if I loved a piece of jewel, then knew it was made by some Jew guy I directly get enraged [that’s because the Palestinian people and how they suffer due to Israel’s actions], but I then searched, read, watched and find that Jews have nothing to do with it, and decided not to judge anyone unless I do some effort to find the truth and hear from them.

 

[JaredJames]

"So our media is corrupted for political purposes, to gain support for our cause, but theirs isn't. Theirs is pure news from an unbiased viewpoint.

Oh come on. They are going to want to make us look worse than we are as much as we want to make us look better than we are. "

So, me and you, simply can watch both and determine which would make more sense..
Not that by doing this you can know which is biased and which is not, but you surely can watch Aljazera in stead of CNN every while and so..
Or, if you care to know which shows more facts than biased news, do some random comparisons.. and by time u`ll be able to know which news make more sense.

BTW, if you watch a channel like Alarabiya, you won`t see any real world difference than what you watch on CNN, because its funded by Americans; and many, many, many other channels will be the same... it looks like some american parties are doing something wrong and trying to hide/twist the facts.

Look, everyone is biased (we've been through this on another thread). Which means everyone will put a certain slant on the news they produce. You saying "so you can know which is biased and which is not" is rubbish. Both will have bias, however the one that agrees with yourself will not be seen by you as bias. That DOES NOT make it better than our 'western' news. Yes I hate our media for hyping things up too much. But I can't see how you can claim they are so much better (I'm watching the Aljaera news channel now).

 

[wajed]

Look, everyone is biased (we've been through this on another thread). Which means everyone will put a certain slant on the news they produce.

I didn`t say anything against that.

You saying "so you can know which is biased and which is not" is rubbish. Both will have bias, however the one that agrees with yourself will not be seen by you as bias.

I said this:

Not that by doing this you can know which is biased and which is not,

and also this:

do some random comparisons.. and by time u`ll be able to know which news make more sense..

That DOES NOT make it better than our 'western' news.

I, defintely, didn`t say there is any news better than another; well, I have my opinion concerning this, but I didn`t post/say anything.

Yes I hate our media for hyping things up too much. But I can't see how you can claim they are so much better (I'm watching the Aljaera news channel now).

I`m really sorry, but I didn`t say that.
but as an advice, I`d suggest you do some comparisons between Aljazera and CNN.
another opinion: if some news make more sense to you, it doesn`t mean its the truth, because of the society you are raised in, and because of many other factors.

 

[JaredJames]

I do apologise for the rant on bias Wajed, I misread Not as Note so you can see why I went the wrong way there.

 

[wajed]

O,O
Its ok, lol :)

 

[NBAJam100]

Oh come on... 'serve your country' means to kill the enemy. I mean people on the front line who are given weapons etc...

Ok, so would this make more sense to you:

The next time our country is threatened we won't send those terrible soldiers out to defend us all... let's just let the enemy come in here and take your life along with your other fellow Americans lives. Surely you would let them come in and take your life because to fight back and kill them would be wrong right?

 

[JaredJames]

Ok, so would this make more sense to you:

The next time our country is threatened we won't send those terrible soldiers out to defend us all... let's just let the enemy come in here and take your life along with your other fellow Americans lives. Surely you would let them come in and take your life because to fight back and kill them would be wrong right?

Surely he'd at least try my solutions:

The OP seems contradictory, 'we should have military but only as a last resort to defend the country'. Now I don't want to point out the flaming obvious here, but how would you go about defending off an attacking force (attempting to kill your people) without killing them? Set up a nice road block and hope it does the trick? Brick up the Channel Tunnel and hope they don't remember boats? Or failing all else, strap a nice big sign to the cliffs at Dover saying "if you attack, we'll have no choice but to get really, really angry"? Honestly, I would rather see British troops wade across the English channel and take on an attacking force in an already conquered (yep, you can see where this is going) France than let it get to our borders and do even more damage, endangering more innocent lives.

 

[Astronuc]

Sorry, wrong information.
Taliban is not an international force/movementary. so they have no work outside pakistan-Afgh.
Qaida is.

What wrong information? The Taliban (under direction of Mullah Omar) attacked other groups in Afghanistan, e.g. the Hazaras who lived in the middle of Afghanistan and near Kabul. The Uzbeks, Tadjiks and Hazaras did not attack Kandahar, but rather Taliban and their allies attacked Kabul, Mazar-e sharif, Herat and numerous small towns. As I understand it, in Mazar-e sharif, troops fought against the Taliban, but when the Taliban returned to Mazar-e sharif, the Taliban targeted everyone, including civilians.

Between May and July 1997, the Taliban unsuccessfully attempted to take Mazar, leading to approximately 3,000 Taliban soldiers being massacred by Abdul Malik and his Shia followers. In retaliation for this incident, the Taliban on August 8, 1998, was reported to have returned and led a six-day killing frenzy of Hazaras, a report which was refuted in a report that pointed out that all claims of military deaths were sourced and referenced, but the accounts of civilian massacres were not attributable to any reliable source and were allegedly fabricated by enemies of their rule.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazari_Sharif

While the narrative is from Wikipedia, its content is consistent with other accounts.

I am also aware that Shah Masoud's Tadjik's attack the Hazaras south of Kabul before the Taliban advanced north from Kandahar. And Hikmetyar's forces have fought with Masud's forces and perhaps Rashid Dostum's forces. And all the forces of Hikmetyar, Dostom, Masud, Ismael Khan, and other warlords have engaged in corrupt behavior.

And certainly al-Qaida has decided to strike/attack US and western interests throughout the world: attack on USN Cole in Yemen, the attacks against US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the attack on WTC in NYCity (Sept 11, 2001), . . . .

And don`t only blame these people. Why? because everyone has participated.
Some don`t even bother theirselves to spend some time showing the truth to others.. (which is important, and can help stop the fighting)
The troops DO kill.. and many times for silly reasons.. but anyway let's talk in general..
The Qaida DO kill..and many times because of the US politics...but in general.. yeah they DO kill..
Those who command the troops to go and kill.. SURE, they are the most guilty of these..

I'm not blaming anyone. I'm simply reporting according to my understanding.

I don't agree with US or western methods concerning Iraq and Afghanistan, but then I'm not in a position of make or influence the decisions. In numerous cases, US (and probably UK/Nato) air forces have bombed or strafed innocent civilians because of faulty information, or simply due to reckless conduct.

Kai Eide, chief of the United Nations mission in Afghanistan, has called for 'an urgent review' of US operations in Afghanistan. That certainly comes late - well after the US airstrike in Azizabad last August in which 90+ civilians (mostly women and children) were killed by US bombs, and just after the airstrike in the village of Granai in Bala Buluk District of Farah province this past May.

Can you please suggest a scenario of how you`d know the truth?
all you get your information from is "CNN" "YAHOO" "MSN" "NEW YORK TIMES"..
HOW do you know what really happens there?

I don't trust those sources cited. I prefer to get my information for Afghan and Pakistani journalists, and westerners who have lived or worked in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan.

I hope you understand you just sacrifice your life by big amount doing this..
you may get hit by a US shell..
a UK shell..
other forces shell..
Resistence shell..
Terrorists shell..
THATS HOW IRAQI PEOPLE LIVE.

The only way to be sure about events in any part of the world is to witness those events and places in person. Yes it is dangerous.

 

[Gokul43201]

Another point that he hasn't thought through is that if it weren't for the US and UK military that he despises, he'd be writing this in German. Of course, that assumes that he's not Jewish, or Roma, or Eastern European, or... In that case, if he was very, very lucky, he might be a slave laborer or subject of medical experiments somewhere, but more likely he'd be six feet under, his skin used to make lampshades.

Where did the OP indicate that he would rather condone killing than be writing in German, laboring as a slave or being used to make lampshades? Aren't you just making assumptions about a person you don't know?

 

[wajed]

The next time our country is threatened we won't send those terrible soldiers out to defend us all... let's just let the enemy come in here and take your life along with your other fellow Americans lives. Surely you would let them come in and take your life because to fight back and kill them would be wrong right?

how did the Iraqis attack you? (or even the persians..)