Soldiers

[think positive]

<split from 'Muslims doing bad things' thread>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-09/jensen-rescuing-martyrdom-from-suicide-bombers/6918436

hmm, this part

now, the confusion between "laying down your life" and killing others is not new, nor is it always associated with religion. I think Jesus would have been horrified to find his words used on the Commonwealth War Graves, as they were. Soldiers have their bloody work to do, and deserve honour and thanks. But to die with a rifle in your hand is not to die a martyr's death.

i guess it depends whether you think soldiers are acting in self defense, or defense of others/country, or being the aggressor? even so, in my mind they are still fighting selflessly on someone else's behalf?

[David]

I tend to think of soldiers as pawns in the hands of politicians. Many are brave, some are braver than I could ever imagine being. But that doesn't make what they're asked to do, or what army training turns them into, right. Soldiers are trained to be both aggressors and defenders; there's no fundamental difference there.

By the way, when you say 'soldiers', are you just talking about Australian/American/British soldiers? Or do you also think Nazi German and Islamic militant soldiers were also selfless and virtuous?

[think positive]

[Wokko]

When you say Nazi soldiers there really needs to be a division made between the Wehrmacht and SS. While there is certainly honor and chivalry in both branches, the majority of blatant war crimes were committed by the SS. Historians have pointed out that the Wehrmacht adhered better to the rules of war than the Imperial German Army of 1914-1918. As David said however, they were bound to follow the dictates of an immoral regime; as ever a soldier's job is to enforce the policies of civilian Governemnt, not make them.

[HAL]

Do you think I should do it differently?

[Mugwump]

[think positive]

Bravo

[David]

[Mugwump]

[David]

If you were signing up to the Australian Army, how confident could you be that the next foreign assignment you were going to be involved in was justifiable and not ethically dubious? Given our country's track record, you could just about toss a coin.

[stui magpie]

^

That's not your decision, you can't be sure. A Soldiers job is to follow orders, not question. There's an element of trust involved that people in possession of more information than you have made a valid decision.

The same principle applies to different degrees in most businesses.

[Mugwump]

[pietillidie]

I would frame it this way: Military roles are roles of social trust. Those in the military sign on to an extremely authoritarian, psychologically stressful, and physically deadly agreement as a matter of social necessity at our behest. In this negotiation, trust is first passed to the military as an organisation, and in turn to us through our representatives, and our individual political and social capabilities of influence.

The failure to stop self-serving, negligent fools like Bush, Blair and Howard abusing that social exchange is our failure. The trust has been handed over to us as the final guardians of social decency and beneficiaries of what is a very unique social pact. Allowing hawkish lunatics and money-grabbing parasites to abuse that pact, or to treat it contemptuously, is every bit our own shame and disgrace.

Lest we forget.

[think positive]

[Mugwump]

^ yes indeed, TP. Too many days never lived, too many days lived but with broken hearts. I fear they will not be the last, but let's hope so. No more wars unless we must.

Lest we forget.