I think you're getting them mixed up with assassins. The army does things like stabilising countries, protecting civilians, toppling tyrants etc.Zhukov said:
Why do people hate the army?
- Thread starter chiefohara
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's funny but I've been reading an awful lot of articles where the slaughter of civilians could hardly be considered "unintended".Sarge034 said:
Pretty much.
Not being disrespectful, but the Irish defence forces has very few instances of things like this. Not because we are better but because our guys don't get put under the same pressure and demands that the US military does. The soldier that killed 16 Afghan civilians was on his 3rd tour of duty and had a breakdown before that happened. Not excusing it, but from what i understand the US military is repeatedly putting people back into active service because they need the numbers, this guy shouldn't have been there in the first place.rhizhim said:
As for the other instances, especially the arsehole with the puppy. Well they are just scumbags. Scumbags are unfortunately present in every walk of life.
The only incident i can recall where our guys were genuine arseholes is this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/01/military.uk
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0830/defence.html
I can't find a link following up with what happened to these guys, but i do know that they got stamped on quite hard.
My point is the army doesn't encourage or ignore these things, and people who do that are held in contempt by people in the military too.
To be fair, a soldier is technically a mercenary, it's just more organised, you get paid to shoot people, if you join the army in a time of peace, and then a week afterwards Britain declares war on Sweden because why the hell not, you're not killing swedish soldiers because you hate them, or even because you believe they are a evil that must be stopped, it's because a man is paying you to shoot Swedish soldiers, sure, you can say it's because your a patriot, but then you're a mercenary who doesn't feel bad about it because it's for "insert home country here".
Yeah. Good point. I think, this was mostly achieved by the Germans being tired of the Nazis and war itself. Also it was not a very different culture.Dr. Mongo said:
But when you look into Afghanistan, it's a completely different situation.
The Taliban are still up an bombing. The government is corrupt as shit.
When the allies marched into Germany they took out everyone who happened to be a Nazi. They really purged this country. Also quite a lot of German people weren't actually Nazis, they just had to keep silent in order of staying alive. So the support in the population for the NSDAP after being freed by the Allies was at best low.
The Taliban are not destroyed, like the NSDAP, they are still feared by kinda everyone in Afghanistan. Also the whole INFIDELS!!!!-deal. This is the cultural aspect.
Another aspect: Now they try to avoid having civilian casualties.
In WW2 they bombed the shit out of everything. People were actually scared of the occupying soldiers. Imagine a civilian attacking a GI in Germany. They would have killed him in splitsecodns.
Look at a civialian attacking a GI in Afghanistan. "You want tea or coffee in prison before you are released in 20 minutes?"
Financial Reasons - I'd love to us divert most of those 10's of billions or 100's of billions of dollars of spending towards health care, education, etc. If we didn't spend so much on military, everyone could benefit from a higher quality of life.
Ethical Reasons - I don't believe in wars solving problems. Especially the wars we choose to participate in. Why attack countries with access to fuel when other countries practice in genocide and we don't feel that is a greater threat to people's freedom. (yes, this is an extremely leading statement but I'm simply trying to illustrate the greater evil in my mind)
Recruitment - It bothers me that the military is largely formed by poverty and low income individuals. The people who are suffering most from the failings of our country are typically the ones dying to keep things from changing.
I freely admit that I'm ignorant when it comes to the reality of the military.
Ethical Reasons - I don't believe in wars solving problems. Especially the wars we choose to participate in. Why attack countries with access to fuel when other countries practice in genocide and we don't feel that is a greater threat to people's freedom. (yes, this is an extremely leading statement but I'm simply trying to illustrate the greater evil in my mind)
Recruitment - It bothers me that the military is largely formed by poverty and low income individuals. The people who are suffering most from the failings of our country are typically the ones dying to keep things from changing.
I freely admit that I'm ignorant when it comes to the reality of the military.
Was it an order or was it murder? A soldier is a person. Some people go bat shit insane. People who are NOT in the military kill people too. Or is a soldier going off and murdering people somehow become worse than a civilian going off and murdering people?manic_depressive13 said:
Only fools deal in absolutes. Most soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen are people doing a job and trying to do it well. It is the minority that presents the bad image for everyone else.
Hey hey, it's my opinion! Yay!Chasing-The-Light said:
That said I'm not gonna blame the troops for what they're doing because ultimately they didn't choose to go to war. I'm sure they'd rather get paid without getting shot at in the end. Also maybe it's not stupid that they join, but maybe it is a bit sad that people feel it's their only way to get stimulating, enjoyable work or, in some cases, any work at all. My friend recently applied for officer training but got rejected. I have to hide the fact that I'm really pleased he got rejected because he's my friend and I don't want him putting himself in danger like that but I still come off as a jerk.
One thing I fucking detest is the charity Help for Heroes. Ok, maybe not the charity itself, but I think that really the armed forces needs to taking fucking better care of its people. Frankly they should be taking account of the fact that people get wounded in war and budget fucking accordingly. Another one of my friends meanwhile, in the navy cadets, gets PAID for a weekend sports day. That is just disgusting. I find the fact that Help for Heroes even exists insulting. Whatever way you look at it, either the army is failing people who put their lives on the line for them or Help for Heroes is wasting money on people already being looked after.
*deep breath*
So yeah, I guess I don't have a problem with soldiers but I do have a problem with the armed forces.
Also, the RIDICULOUS number of career talks I have had from the army telling me to do engineering for them is absurd. Give me some space bro!
Well... at least the civilians bullets weren't paid for by the taxpayer. Also it's recommended to keep an eye on the sanity of the people you hand guns to.Sarge034 said:
I personally don't like armies. Winning a war proves nothing other than superior capacity to win a war, it says nothing about the superiority of the nation whose army it is. I respect people who are in the army if and only if they can justify why they are in the army, what they are fighting for and why its necessary to fight for it. Basically, I respect people who have made an informed decision to fight for their country.
Wowowow. Britain wouldn't attack Sweden, you love us!Agow95 said:
Funny though you took Sweden as an example, cause it WAS an good argument against what you wrote because of one thing: conscription. I was one of the last conscripted soldiers. I was technically forced into the army, and since I am not very fond of violence I was placed as and Engineer/Medic. I was given a very, very good medical education and learned a lot.
I believe that a conscripted army is superior to a professional army, since it is a peoples army, with normal boys and girls with normal lives. The military is one of the few jobs no-one in their right mind "wants" to be in, but it is a necessary evil. And when I was there I was glad I did it with guys that was somewhat skeptical to using gun and stupid order, rather than gung-ho machomen.
No we have a professional army, and from what I heard, the quality and quantity has gone down quiet a bit; too many soldiers that wants to fight, to few that wants to do a good job.
Also note that a conscripted army can't be used in foreign countries, but that not really a bad thing a believe. An army is for defence.
I don't hate the army because they just do their jobs so I can live happily without fear of being blown up. However, I do have my biases against the US military because of the whole warmongering culture that surrounds it but I bet rarely makes its way into the military itself. Luckily I'm in the UK where our army is small, but better trained and worthy of such respect.
You don't think dehumanising the enemy has anything to do with it? 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?Sarge034 said:
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. 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.
"Gawrsh, why do people hate state-funded-and-trained killers? I just don't get it."
That's kind of how your post comes off to me. You can argue all you like, but the army's function comes down to two things - deterrence or killing. Sure, you can make the argument for 'but it's for self-defense'. Sure. In some cases, that's correct. Self-defense from someone else's army. And while it does differ from country to country, look at the US. Look at them. They're using their army to stomp all over developing nations.
But I don't hate the army. Armies won WW2 and removed german oppressors from my country. I just ain't comfortable with it, is all.
That's kind of how your post comes off to me. You can argue all you like, but the army's function comes down to two things - deterrence or killing. Sure, you can make the argument for 'but it's for self-defense'. Sure. In some cases, that's correct. Self-defense from someone else's army. And while it does differ from country to country, look at the US. Look at them. They're using their army to stomp all over developing nations.
But I don't hate the army. Armies won WW2 and removed german oppressors from my country. I just ain't comfortable with it, is all.
Varies from person to person and from army to army. A Chinese student will have different views to an American survivalist.
I'm not hostile towards the Danish army, though I would feel conflicted joining them as a republican when they're a fervently monarchist institution.
I'm not hostile towards the Danish army, though I would feel conflicted joining them as a republican when they're a fervently monarchist institution.
I have no problem with soldiers for the UN/NATO but anyone fighting for their country I have a problem with. I don't believe in patriotism, it is unfounded, every country has a disgusting past and as such killing people in it's name is not honourable, however fighting for a world organisation to keep the peace makes sense to me.
