Diogenes the Cynic disprespects the military

The BBQ Pit
1

QUOTE]*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
**Who gives a fuck why they do it? The point is that they do it. The job of any military is to cause tremendous misery and suffering to another group of people, usually, but not always, for some kind of material gain.

Armies exist to cause harm. Period. **
[/QUOTE]

You have no idea what you are talking about, you ignorant lout. Soldiers, officers, and planners put their lives on the line to avoid killing civilians, and even enemy soldiers. They take the risky road to avoid unnecessary death. They put their lives on the line, not just for the civilians on the field of battle, not just for their comrades, not even the enemy soldiers, whom they could bomb out of existence with tactical nukes, but would rather fight conventionally. The do it for you, you little pissant.

And you have the gall, the temerity, to talk about “material gain”? Do you know what a private soldier, what some National Guard private specialist called up from a lucrative computer job is getting paid to keep you safe, you whining little piece of garbage? What these selfless volunteers are giving up so you have the freedom to come on the board and talk about them “existing to cause harm — period”? You ungrateful retching little menad, they exist to protect you and the likes of you, not that you deserve it.

But they will still do it, because it is their duty. They will put their lives on the line, protecting you, dying to avoid as much as possible killing innocent civilians while achiving their objectives in far off lands. And if those objectives are ill conceived (as they often are — that is what a military under the control of politicians gives us, to our shame as a country) they will still give their lives to carry out those orders, because they serve their country. That is what they give their lives to do, not to “cause harm”, you stupid little lickspittle.

Remember that next time you decide to disrespect someone whose boots you are not fit to clean.

2

Apparently, Diogenes is a veteran of the US armed forces himself (I forget which branch) so I think he gets a bit of a pass. Certainly some of your specific accusations would appear to be out of place, in light of this fact.

3

DtC was in the military IIRC.

Really? All the time? Everyone of them? Bollocks, would be my answer. There have been soldiers convicted of murder and gross misconduct so it’s not a 100% deal by any means.

Soldiers volunteer to do a hard job but they get a lot of benefits as well. The majority are most likely nice rule following human beings but some are bastards like any section of people.
This blind support for the military that I see coming from a lot of areas especially in the US always surprises me.

4

Armies exist to implement political policy. Typically that means killing people, which normally means inflicting suffering and misery on people that would not have had to suffer if the army had not entered into the question to begin with.

5

Nope. Don’t buy it. I’ve seen too many people work too hard to avoid casualites to buy it.

Sure, there are war crimes, and they are tried as such. They are the exceptions.

6

Well, first… could you post a link?

Secondly, what is all this about worshipping the ground that military people walk on? I was around to see the disgraceful way returning soldiers were treated in the 1970’s, but it seems that we went the other way now. I respect the job the people in the military do, it’s not a safe occupation, but signing up doesn’t make you an instant hero either.

7

Ah yes, politicians in control of the military. Perhaps your preferred option is the reverse then. And we know how well that works don’t we? The military do such a good job of making decisions and running things. Why just ask the good people of Burma - they know. :rolleyes:

It seems as well that you are not particularly familiar with history as it relates to out of control soldiers. But I am sure you can research it. Perhaps you would like to start with My Lai.

I cannot believe I am defending DtG but this is ridiculous.

8

No, no. That is precisely the point. Civilian control of the military is the cornerstone of our freedom. It is why we are free.

But you don’t blame the soldiers for carrying out their orders as compassionately as possible if those orders are political.

9

It’s a matter of what your job is.

Your job isn’t to cause destruction and hurt people. That’s not what people sign up for.

Your job is to achieve your objective (which is decided by others) with as few casualties as possible. You minimize the hurt as much as you can. And to say that you deliberately set out to hurt others as much as you can is, frankly, insulting. Especially when I have seen operations planned that put people at risk to avoid civilian and enemy casualties.

People just don’t take a job whose primary objective is to cause destruction.

10

The job is to kill people opposing their objective.

The political (civilian) dimension is what attempts to minimize casualties.

11

How about you define the proper role of a miltary force then. It certainly cannot be defence of their country if the uses they have been put to traditionally, particulalry over the years since the end of WWII, are taken into account. Which brings me to another point in the OP. That the existence of said soldiers is to do with protecting us. That looks like a fairly shaky statement and I think you may have some trouble defending it.

The prime motivation, the raison d’etre, for the soldier in any form is the taking of human life, or at times resources such as land. Whether those decisions be politically motivated or otherwise may not be the point. You do not train people to kill without question and then expect them not to do it.

Now I do not necessarily wish to condone precisely what DtC said, but I do not think your pitting was thought out. You seem to be assigning a kind of beatified status to those in the miltary qua their being in the military. It just does not follow.

12

First question: when I saw the title of this thread, it sounds as if you are considered a criminal in the USA when you dare to “disrespect” the military.

Next: The OP claims that those people do “their duty”.
I’m sorry, but I didn’t know it was “a duty” for every US’er to sign up for the army these days.

If not: then what are you talking about? And what “duty” are the invaders of Iraq performing other then invading and occupying a sovereign nation and killing and maiming its citizens?

And they all did enter the army = accepted a job that is paid = they got paid for learning how to kill = they kill when they are send to kill = they know they are paid for a job that is aimed at getting trained to kill in order to be send out to kill and be expected actually do those killings. And they do it.
What is so “heroic” about that and what is the “duty” about that, other then the “duty” to do the job they are paid for. Because otherwise they are in breach with the contract made between them and the US military that gave them that job at their request.

What else is there to say about it? Every country has an army in some form or the other. But not in every country people are free to decide if they want to be part of that and want to get trained to kill in order to be able to go actually do that killing.

This is a distinction one should make. And because of that, the more it comes across as completely incomprehensible idiocy that so many US’ers simply adore what they call “Our Hero’s”.

Salaam. A

13

… and the link?

14

I know many who have done precisely this. Many of them begin as brutal people and become worse. Looks to be a blanket claim with little support.

15

Can you give any examples of this especially the bit about risking US soldiers to avoid enemy casualties? I’ve seen little evidence of this myself. I can buy the civilians part to a certain degree.

Saving US soldiers was the main reason I’ve heard for dropping “The Bomb” on the Hiroshima for example. There is also the many shootings of civilians at roadblocks in Iraq because the troops felt at risk due to civilians not following the rules as laid down by the army. I’ve heard many a spokesman say that one of the biggest priorities is to protect US military lives and if civilians get killed that’s very unfortunate but unavoidable.

BTW I’m don’t what to blast the US military at all but that’s what the thread is about. I just think that your rose coloured classes are particularly strong. YMMV

16

In general, enemy casualties come after US casualties on the priority list, I agree (as in your example of the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima). But in the rules of engagement for the recent conflict in Iraq, our military had orders to avoid engaging enemy forces under certain conditions (if they had not fired, and if they had guns swiveled in the opposite direction) on the theory that they would be surrendering en masse, to avoid unnecessary casualties. This resulted in some “sneak attacks”; however, this was deemed acceptable for the sake of those who did surrender, and many did.

This is reflected in general practice as well. If you have an enemy in an inferior position, it is general practice to suspend artillery to give him a chance to surrender, even at the risk of allowing him to regroup and causing additional casualties of your own if he refuses. The theory is that he will do the same to you, in a similar situation.

As far as my “rose colored glasses” are concerned, they reflect the men I have served with. They don’t sign up to kill people. They sign up to serve. It’s not all altruism — they get something out if it — but to say armies only exist to cause harm really gets my goat. And it certainly deserves pitting, even if I’m the only one on the board that thinks so.

17

None of this refutes Diogenes’s point that armies exist to cause harm. They do. Even you must be able to see this.

The “material gain” Diogenes mentioned is obviously not the wages of each individual soldier.

What did Vietnam have to do with protecting Diogenes? Korea? Bay of Pigs? Kuwait? Iraq?

And that’s a good thing? People acting like mindless drones carrying out idiotic orders? That’s good in your opinion?

Nevertheless, their methods are to cause harm, their objective is to cause harm, their purpose is to cause harm. That their primary overlying goal isn’t to cause harm is a redeeming feature, but nothing more.

Oh, and this was the lamest Pit subject line in a while. “Diogenes the Cynic disrespects the military”? Well I never! The little rascal!

18

If the military goes out of their way to avoid killing civilians then can you explain the use of cluster bombs in Afghanistan? Or the U.S.'s refusal to sign the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty?

19

Because both of those weapons are also useful against troops, and the military decided that the benefits outweighed the harm? That doesn’t necessarily mean that the military doesn’t try and avoid killing civilians–just that it doesn’t hold it has a priority above all others. When your job is to kill the other army without getting killed yourself, I’d say this is a sensible ordering of priorities.

I’m surprised this got off on to the civilian tangent. DtC didn’t say “civilians,” he said “people.” Usually, the other side’s army is composed of people.

There really isn’t anything controversial in what you quoted DtC as saying. Armies exist to hurt people. It’s why guns are so important to them! If it was a group of people whose primary job wasn’t to hurt people, you’d call it something other then an army–a charity, or a “Happy Happy Corp” or perhaps.

20

A large number of individual war crimes go unnoticed. And more major war crimes? Well, they’re pretty much for the losers.

Not that I’m implying that every soldier commits war crimes. Not even close. But from talks I’ve had with people who’ve served, lots goes unnoticed.