3 Royal Marines killed, another soldier shoots self

[Sulkdodds]

Enlisting in any military is a choice that should obviously never be taken lightly- a path that shouldn't be taken without honorable cause. The purpose and function of a standing army is both effective and just. You condemn those who enlist now because you do not support the war

No. 'Condemn' being too strong a word, I disagree with those who sign up to be unconditional tools of a government which nobody in their right mind would trust, because they are committing their service to a deeply suspect body. Unless you mean that my lack of support for the war has causally led to my belief on this matter.

Yes, I understand and empathise with the sentiment about what it means to join the armed forces, what it means to put your service in the hands of the electorate. It's just that in reality, in practicality, I think it's naive to think the electorate has enough of a say in the matter, or that its say is moral enough, in which case to turn oneself into a tool is a deeply problematic action. And those who join the army knowing what their country is up to at the time (it's been a while) join in full knowledge of what they may be used for. Ultimately who can endorse making decisions on the basis of a "faith" which reality doesn't bear out?

The argument for joining a neutral organisation part of the apperatus of a civil state, whose existence is absolutely necessary, on the basis that said organisation must continue to function and must function in its present manner (a useful analogue might be a lawyer defending an awful criminal; the criminal must be defended, and the function is essential) is interesting. I'll have to think about it.

I know you also blame the fence keepers, but why strike at the branches when you can cut down the tree?

Practically speaking, I am probably never going to go on a demo or sign a petition against soldiers (whatever that would mean), nor is anybody really going to start such a demo, because it would be so divisive and as you say there would be bigger issues. Here, on an internet discussion forum, I am "striking" at nothing.

 

[Pesmerga]

I disagree with the argument that the current conflict is wholly immoral. Surely, the war is not entirely popular and there seems to be no present or future stability. Is it unjust to control the oil supply- a supply that could be cut off from us if OPEC nations were to decide so? It is far better under the protection of a large governing body of millions of diverse minds than the body of a few businessmen, I think.

The difference lies in the fact that, unlike a tool, a soldier is a human being with their own mind and will. I dont believe that the electorate should be a soldiers moral compass, it must be himself as it should be in every situation. How can we absolve them of blame when they continue to enlist and continue to fight for an unjust cause? In my eyes, volunteering your life to be a tool of evil is nearly as bad as the wielding of that tool.

No one is enlisting to directly join an "evil" cause. The American people voted for President Bush- we voted him Commander in Chief of the American Armed Forces. We cannot suddenly take away his powers without impeaching the man, it is under the Constitution that he is allowed to deploy forces overseas to engage in conflict with other nations. You may hold it in your mind that the war is evil, and assuredly there have been tragic violations of human rights, but those were the causes of individual commanders and soldiers- not the body as a whole.

It is the obligation of the people to distrust the government, not the responsibility of the soldier. The soldier may be judged for his individual actions, but to enlist means to be a part of a tool- a tool dispassionate to ethics or moral obligations.

Sulkdodds, in practicality, defendants in the court of law get away with murder and theft and other crimes all the time. I prefer to err on the side of idealism when it comes to judgments such as those you are passing on to enlisted men- of course I wouldn't recommend anyone sign up now; the war is farce and it is my obligation to warn anyone I know about the inherent dangers of both the domestic governing body and foreign enemies. It is also my duty as an American to do anything in my power to spread my opinions and ideas to others. But it is their right by law and by virtue to enlist, I cannot question their morality on the basis of doing something virtuous, and neither can anyone else.

Honor the soldiers who fight to end the war, shame those who send them to an unjust war.

 

[nerdcorerocks]

I figure I'd chime in for Sulkdodds. First of all, I'm not saying that the US or British or whatever armies are perfect and never do wrong. Their shortcomings definitely need to be corrected.

But still, what do you think the UK would be like if the government completely disbanded their armies? Or if the US did this? Whether you like it or not, at the minimum these are like the giant bouncer's you see at bars who stand around and look tough. While I understand the dilemma of supporting men who's job may very well require them to kill other human beings, you can't just say that you don't respect them while at the same time enjoy the fact that no one can waltz into your country with tanks.

Although I'm sure that there are far too many, not everyone who signs up for service does so so that they can get to kill people.

 

[Kase]

War is Hell and Lives will be Lost.

But Every person knows that when joining the militery that they could die and are willing to risk their life for the benifit of their countrys
and for that every person serving in Iraq and in Afganistan UK/US/Canada where ever they are from have my Thanks and my Best Wishes on a safe return

Just count your blessing when they started there war they didnt start national service. even thow i think Britain needs it and would sort our country out tbh

 

[CptStern]

you know, I'm kinda disappointed in the lot of you. My last post was ignored ...

http://halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2837458&postcount=30

... despite it's sheer brilliance.

truth be told; being the modest person that I am, it would be disingenuous if I claimed sole responsibility. Alas no, the stars were aligned, the icy tentacles of divine intervention were wrapping their coils about this mortal frame. controlling, guiding my hand into forming what could possibly be the most perfect response to a forum post ever. since the dawn of time, infinity + 1.

Yet it's ignored over your petty arguments on the moral makeup of the common foot soldier. Pedestrian in comparison.

For shame hl2.net, an opportunity such as this only happens once an epoch, to squander it is a travesty, a crime against deceny and justice, a crime against all that we hold dear. You people make me want to RETCH



the above message was brought to you by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Stern

 

[Krynn72]

their! God damn it. The word is their.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

straight up ****** hippies in this thread it's sad.

Have you ever made a useful post on this forum, or have you always been a troll?

On the whole war thing, I think war is rarely, if ever, nessacary or ethical. The vast majority of wars in the 20th century, for example, served no purpose. WW2 was different, as Hitler had to be stopped, but apart from that (and possibly the Falklands) I can't think of any. WW1, Korea, Vietnam, etc. all bullshit and pointless.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Just count your blessing when they started there war they didnt start national service. even thow i think Britain needs it and would sort our country out tbh

Yeah, cause that worked well in Vietnam didn't it!


Oh wait. I guess people don't want to be slaves. Funny that.

EDIT: And incidentally, if you people are so in favor of the war in Afghanistan, why aren't you fighting it? Because you are a hypocrite? Or a coward?









Or both?

 

[Kase]

Yeah, cause that worked well in Vietnam didn't it!


Oh wait. I guess people don't want to be slaves. Funny that.

EDIT: And incidentally, if you people are so in favor of the war in Afghanistan, why aren't you fighting it? Because you are a hypocrite? Or a coward?









Or both?

or am going to the gym 6 times a week and signing up in march when i feel i should be physicly up for the challange
and its not being a slave its doing your part for your country that has givin education jobs homes food water protection and your freedom to say and to what you want

 

[Eejit]

and its not being a slave its doing your part for your country that has givin education jobs homes food water protection and your freedom to say and to what you want

Because there aren't ways to do that which don't involve being trained to kill other humans, right?

 

[Pesmerga]

You two are both pissing me off. Atomic Spark, why did Hitler have to be stopped? He was doing wonders for his country and had plans to unite Europe under a common enterprise- why did we have to stop him? Sure, the whole killing Jews thing was pretty bad, but most nations didn't even know it was happening until much later into the war.

Your nation competes for your favor as all nations do.

"Bull shit and pointless wars"

Men start wars, and others need to stop them. Sure, if we could all just hold hands and pinky promise to never start another war again, I would be all for it. But reality is that wars are started and the function of a military force is a necessary one to both defend its people, resources, order, and peace.

The bounds of this argument have collapsed and everyone is joining in with their own platitudes. You people need to learn to stop diving in after some moron's idiocy.

 

[Kase]

Because there aren't ways to do that which don't involve being trained to kill other humans, right?

or Trained to help people the militery is not only about killing people
if you belive all they do is kill then your sadly mistaken

 

[Bob_Marley]

Because there aren't ways to do that which don't involve being trained to kill other humans, right?

To protect the nation-state? Ulitmately, no. War is inevitable and in order to achive the core aim of any state, that of survival, it must be prepared to use force.

There will always be states that want to increase thier own power and are prepared to use force to do so. Because of this every state needs armed forces if it is to maintain its position in the face of such aggression.

 

[CptStern]

YAAAAARGHHHFCKINGMOFOEATINGFCKDIEDIEDIE!!!


that's it! you're all off my christmas list!!!

 

[Eejit]

To protect the nation-state?

That wasn't what I was talking about there, nice reading comprehension.

 

[Pesmerga]

That wasn't what I was talking about there, nice reading comprehension.

You're the one with wretched reading comprehension.

God I hate people.

 

[Eejit]

its doing your part for your country that has givin education jobs homes food water protection and your freedom to say and to what you want

... is what I was replying to. I was saying there are other ways to "do your part for your country". Obviously not -.-

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

or am going to the gym 6 times a week and signing up in march when i feel i should be physicly up for the challange

Good for you then.

and its not being a slave its doing your part for your country that has givin education jobs homes food water protection and your freedom to say and to what you want

Actually, it is slavery. Period. Slavery is being forced to do something, against your will. That fits the definition of national service. Secondly, I can help my country (which is nothing more than an abstract idea anyway) by teaching kids, or being a doctor, or something like that. I would never kill another human being, not for the state, not for anybody.

You two are both pissing me off. Atomic Spark, why did Hitler have to be stopped? He was doing wonders for his country and had plans to unite Europe under a common enterprise- why did we have to stop him? Sure, the whole killing Jews thing was pretty bad, but most nations didn't even know it was happening until much later into the war.

Because he was a threat to this country - a real one, not like the terrorists, who will never be caught, never be totally killed.

"Bull shit and pointless wars"

Men start wars, and others need to stop them. Sure, if we could all just hold hands and pinky promise to never start another war again, I would be all for it. But reality is that wars are started and the function of a military force is a necessary one to both defend its people, resources, order, and peace.

I believe war is only acceptable in the defense of a nation - but lets be honest, very few wars are about that - most are about nationalism, power, or something like that. They always have been, and always will be. [/QUOTE]

 

[Pesmerga]

I believe war is only acceptable in the defense of a nation - but lets be honest, very few wars are about that - most are about nationalism, power, or something like that. They always have been, and always will be.

Have you ever played Starcraft? You know turtling doesn't work.

 

[Bob_Marley]

That wasn't what I was talking about there, nice reading comprehension.

The chap you quoted distinctly said "protection", you stated that there were other ways to achieve this than through the use of armed force or as you put it killing people.

... is what I was replying to. I was saying there are other ways to "do your part for your country". Obviously not -.-

Considering its part of what a state does, its an entirely vailid way to "do your part". Indeed, for that particular way of "doing one's part" I would argue that its the only way, directly or indirectly.

 

[Kase]

I would never kill another human being, not for the state, not for anybody.

So you would never kill anyone not to protect your family your city your country or even for the greater good of world?

also wars have been around for like ever and will always be around and
National service is not slavery.
Slavery is exploitation of labour
National Service is being forced to Help your Country and you get paid for it rather that sit around and do nothing with your life. Fair doos if your in full time education it shouldnt apply to you if your doing a prductive job i.e not working in hmv or at your local bk, but proper work like being a teacher a doctor or smthing else that helps your country and its people it should not apply to you but for the vast majority of the brittish 16-30 year olds i personaly feel they take their countrys for granted and being forced into the militery would do them a world of good

 

[Pesmerga]

As I've said time and time again, life is not the pinnacle of virtue.

 

[Eejit]

The chap you quoted distinctly said "protection", you stated that there were other ways to achieve this than through the use of armed force or as you put it killing people.



Considering its part of what a state does, its an entirely vailid way to "do your part". Indeed, for that particular way of "doing one's part" I would argue that its the only way, directly or indirectly.

Yes, he said conscription is a fair way to repay the country for protecting you. As you say, I said there are other ways, I didn't say that enlisting is not one of them.
It is a way, but not the only one. Just the most morally dubious one in my opinion.

 

[the cow says moo]

Originally Posted by CptStern
the sheep say baaaaaaa

^It's true, I do watch Fox.

 

[CptStern]

my condolences

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

So you would never kill anyone not to protect your family your city your country or even for the greater good of world?

Perhaps to protect myself/my family, but I doubt it would be a choice - it would be uncontrollable instinct/rage. For my country? A country is an abstract idea, it means nothing.

also wars have been around for like ever and will always be around

At least while there is scarcity of resources. Future developments in areas such as nanotechnology could take care of that little problem.

National service is not slavery.
Slavery is exploitation of labour
National Service is being forced to Help your Country and you get paid for it rather that sit around and do nothing with your life.

First off, what right do you have to suggest that I am doing nothing with my life? Second of all, you said it yourself, slavery is the being forced to work - and thats what national service is. Whether or not you get paid is irrelevant - you still have no choice.

Fair doos if your in full time education it shouldnt apply to you if your doing a prductive job i.e not working in hmv or at your local bk, but proper work like being a teacher a doctor or smthing else that helps your country and its people it should not apply to you but for the vast majority of the brittish 16-30 year olds i personaly feel they take their countrys for granted and being forced into the militery would do them a world of good

And yet if everyone working at HMV or whatever was away fighting, there would be no-one to do those jobs - because everyone who does them would be called up.

 

[CptStern]

So you would never kill anyone not to protect your family your city your country or even for the greater good of world?

this doesnt make much sense when you actually have a family ..I mean I'd kill you, the president, mother theresa and jesus himself if they threatened my family ..right or wrong doesnt play into this ..and conversely I'd never put myself into a position (going off to war) that would put my family in jeopardy of losing their father. The rules completely change when you have a family of your own ..it's basically us against everyone else, good evil fair play justice isnt all that important when you take that into consideration

 

[Kase]

For my country? A country is an abstract idea, it means nothing.

then you dont deserve to live in one then

At least while there is scarcity of resources. Future developments in areas such as nanotechnology could take care of that little problem.

no it wont there will always be war

First off, what right do you have to suggest that I am doing nothing with my life? Second of all, you said it yourself, slavery is the being forced to work - and thats what national service is. Whether or not you get paid is irrelevant - you still have no choice.

but its still not slavery

And yet if everyone working at HMV or whatever was away fighting, there would be no-one to do those jobs - because everyone who does them would be called up.

and yes there would still be people doing those jobs

 

[Bob_Marley]

National Service is being forced to Help your Country and you get paid for it rather that sit around and do nothing with your life. Fair doos if your in full time education it shouldnt apply to you if your doing a prductive job i.e not working in hmv or at your local bk, but proper work like being a teacher a doctor or smthing else that helps your country and its people it should not apply to you but for the vast majority of the brittish 16-30 year olds i personaly feel they take their countrys for granted and being forced into the militery would do them a world of good

Not being funny man, but do you really think giving all those sorts of people military training is a good idea? From what I understand they have a nightmare over in Eastern Europe because of national service and certain... undesireables spending two years of thier life being trained for that sort of thing and then are simply cut loose.

Also, conscript armies tend to be of poorer quality and less motivated than fully professional forces, as well as being virtual political suicde to actually deploy because they're not volunteers. Theres a reason that virtually all of the French military adventures of the post WWII era until the mid 1990s were lead by the forgien legion. Or why countries like Germany deploy thier soldiers only to the "safe" areas of Afghanistan.

 

[Escaep]

Second of all, you said it yourself, slavery is the being forced to work - and thats what national service is. Whether or not you get paid is irrelevant - you still have no choice.

But in a way isn't all work slavery then? If you don't do it, you are fired. Life in in of itself is slavery in a way because we are forced to work to live--we need money to live--except for the small group of people who inherit money or get rich quick.

 

[Kase]

Not being funny man, but do you really think giving all those sorts of people military training is a good idea?

I think it would be a good idea its just my opinion, loud mouth 18 year old chavs on street corners yelling at pensoners and anyone who looks diffrent from them in anyway maybe being forced to do somthing slightly good with their lifes will prolly do them the world of good
and the Emo/Goths who would rather spend there time sitting in grave yards smoking weed and sniffing glue maybe will do them the world of good also

 

[CptStern]

I think it would be a good idea its just my opinion, loud mouth 18 year old chavs on street corners yelling at pensoners and anyone who looks diffrent from them in anyway maybe being forced to do somthing slightly good with their lifes will prolly do them the world of good

forced military service for chavs ..you take people who are essentially thugs and petty criminals and train them in the art of violence and then cut them loose once they do their alloted time ..sounds like a fabulous idea

and the Emo/Goths who would rather spend there time sitting in grave yards smoking weed and sniffing glue maybe will do them the world of good also

but just the grave sitting glue sniffing variety, not the ones who just use it as a fashion statement and are actually good kids with bright futures ......right?

the point is that generalisations are generalisations. to force military training as a means of discipline may work for some but not all. I cant speak for the rest of you but I doubt military training would have made me a better person.

 

[G(ordon)-man]

Oh joy, it's the new debate thread.

 

[nurizeko]

Send chavs off to a desert shithole to fight shitholes, I can live with that.

 

[Eejit]

...so that the ones who come home are even more violent and dangerous. Yeah, sounds like pure genius to me.

 

[Pesmerga]

Wouldn't being trained with strict discipline, routines, and knowledge of warfare help one constrain one's emotional outbursts? Especially after being exposed to live fire combat?

 

[Eejit]

Chav's violence isn't due to emotional outbursts. It's sociopathic.

 

[Pesmerga]

Chavs are all sociopaths? Seems like they're just all part of a group of teens who encourage violence and verbal brutality as a practice of cultural separatism and cry for attention.

 

[Eejit]

Apart from the cry for attention bit. Still doesn't sound like anything military training would help with. Some of my friends have had run-ins with (ex-)squaddie chavs. Nasty ****ers.

 

[nurizeko]

...so that the ones who come home are even more violent and dangerous. Yeah, sounds like pure genius to me.

Don't bring them home, duh.