You aren’t. I agree with you.
Let’s see if DtC comes in to put his comment in context. But I’d say it is incorrect on its face. The military can have two main objectives: offensive or defensive. That is, defending against invaders or invading a country outright. Causing harm to people might be one tactic to achieve one of those objectives, but the harm is not in and of itself an objective. There can be other tactics (that don’t involve harming people) used to achieve those objectives. Dropping leaflets on a city instructing people on what to do to avoid being harmed during an attack might be one. Dropping food packeges (eg in Afghanistan) would be another. Unless you are Roland Hedley in Doonesbury, that latter is not generally a harm-inducing activity.
Armies exist to destroy things in about the same way that doctors exist to cut into people and rip pieces of them out.
In other words, absent the context of WHY they are doing what they are doing, it’s an insanely stupid comment to make.
I take you have never seen combat itself.
As a veteran of Viet Nam let me say a few words.
The great majority of troops in a combat situation don’t fight for me, they don’t fight for you,they don’t even in reality fight for their country. The fight for themselves, they fight for their buddies. They kill or don’t kill for purely selfish reasons.If killing saves their asses they kill. And there is nothing wrong with that.
But to say Armies aren’t for doing the most damage they can is a specious statement at best.
And since no rational person could read the title and find any reference to being a criminal, this proves nothing more than you are about half as bright as a burned-out light bulb.
Again, to find any such implication in the OP, you have to be a blithering idiot, or Aldebaran. Or is that redundant?
We don’t have a military draft in the US. Therefore your point seems to be that one should not praised a fellow citizen for doing a difficult and occasionally dangerous service, unless they are forced into doing it.
Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?
Regards,
Shodan
Let me start by saying that I was not singling out the US military in particular or any other miltary. I was speaking in general terms about military organizations and the purpose of war. The military is a tool, a means to an end. The end is achieved by inflicting harm.
I was also not passing any moral judgement on those who serve in the military. I was in the military, so was my Dad, one of my brothers and various uncles and grandfathers.
If I was passing judgement I was passing on those who would use the military irresponsibly. To play off of Sam Stone’s analogy, the purpose of a scalpl is to slice somebody open. It’s only done under very controlled circumstances for very compelling reasons. It isn’t done unless it’s necessary. Cutting a person open does harm to them, even when it achieves a greater good. The only reason to do it is when not doing it would result in more harm.
The military should only be used when not using it would result in more misery and suffering than using it.
Nicely handled, Dio.
Linkatage:
Post #37. Hypnoboth, when you Pit someone you’re supposed to link to it so others know what you’re talking about. It’s also a good idea to tell the Pittee that a Pitting has been done, though on preview I see DtC has found his way down here.
This may all be moot since DtC seems to be clarifying his statements, but since I already typed it:
The other thing that no-one has pointed out is that nearly all militray commanders strive to win with as little damage as possible. It’s a basic principle of military thinking from Sun Tzu onward that, all things being equal, getting your enemy to surrender without a fight is better than beating him in combat.
In some cases mere victory is not the goal: Sherman’s “March to the Sea” was designed to break the Confederacy’s will to fight and destroy their infrastructure, and so it was exceptionally destructive. But even there, the goal was not killing for the sake of killing. That’s essentially psychopathic behavior, and while there are probably some psychopaths in the military, they’re not in charge.
I generally agree, though I think you also need to factor in who will do the suffering. If China were to launch nukes at Japan, Japan can and should retaliate, even if the end result is that more Chinese suffer than Japanese.
Surely there’s more to it than just that. Otherwise, it sounds like you just made the case for the invasion of Iraq.
Gee, I don’t know. Did you ever get shot at, like Reeder apparently did, or did you do time in the service like Diogenes did, and I, a poor amateur military historian, didn’t?
Maybe they have a different perspective on things.
Well, as far as i could tell, DtC was positing that as a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for using the military. Even if that particular condition is met, it does not excuse things like violations of international treaties, the UN, etc., etc.
Surely, you meant to use the winky rather than the smiley.
The invasion of Iraq served no defensive purpose was not a legitimate expenditure of human lives, IMO.
UnwrittenNocturne,
Dude, pull your head out of your ass before speaking. Otherwise, shit comes out of your mouth. The American soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine are all trained to kill. Quickly, efficiently, and on command. But NEVER without question. If my lieutenant were to tell me to off one of the Iraqi civilians that my outfit currently share a town with, the first thing I’d do is relieve him of his command. Then, I’d have an officer from our sister company (yes, I’m Air Force, but attached to an Army company for the time being) arrest him for gross misconduct, issuing an illegal order, and whatever else the UCMJ would allow us to throw at him. From there, its up to the Staff Judge Advocate to dole out justice.
(And yes, I do know that this is at odds with my signature. The signature is hyperbole, the post is not.)
Homebrew,
As far as cluster munitions (not just bombs, but artillery as well) go, they are used for their area denial ability as much as their killing power. There is a version known as the Hades, which uses napalm clusters instead of standard HE. The Brits use a low-altitude parachute retarded version known as the Durandal (spelling?) which bust up bunkers and runways. We’re not the only ones, and they give a marked tactical edge to the forces that use them.
As far as the mine treaty, I have one word (a name really.) Korea. We’ve got only a few thousand men over there, and the only thing that’s keeping the Commies at bay (or at least the only thing that kept the Commies at bay for many, many years) is a 10,000,000+ unit minefield some four miles in depth.
Reeder,
Dead on with your response.
It would be nice if the world as a whole would all just jump up, hug, and grope each others asses rather than fight and kill, but it’s not going to happen overnight. Someone will always seek to take any advantage over anyone they can. Sure we can slowly change the moral standard, but the effects of this new peaceful line of thought will not take strong root in our culture overnight. But never forget that the peace and freedom, to what ever extent it may be, that you enjoy in your part of the world is there because someone fought those who sought to keep it from you. Many people put their lives on the line to try to preserve a comfortable standard of living for you and I. Not that some wars are not fought at times for material and political gain, but to claim that an institution is only there to cause suffering while ignoring the good it has enabled is demeaning to those who fought for the preservation of lives and liberties. I believe this is what is called throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And on the same line of thought, one should not glorify an institution just because of what good it has done in the past while ignoring, or justifying its faults. Power is abused more often than not, and the governing bodies of most militaries use them to their own ends ignoring the pain caused on that road.
There’s my input on the subject for whatever it may be worth. Yes I read the response from Diogenes the Cynic, but I still felt like tossing in my opinion.
Pull your own head out of your arse, it is apparently so far up there you cannot see for the shit. You might very well respond as you say but one hell of a lot of people will not. People who revel in brutality are often attracted to the military precisely because it gives them the chance to be violent. Look around some time, check out some history.
Isn’t a soldier responsible if she or he carries out orders that are immoral?
Don’t talk nonsense. If the idea of an Army is to do the most damage they can, we would never have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq, just lobbed a nuke at them.
It doesn’t take an army to send weapons of mass distruction. Two totally different things. Two totally different uses.
I told you not to talk nonsense.
Why didn’t we use WMD in Iraq and Afghanistan? If the purpose of the army is to do as much damage as possible, why didn’t we shoot everyone in sight, burn down their villages, and rape their cattle?
Looking over **hypnoboth’s ** posts in this thread, I’d have to say I’ve never seen a finer example of selective response by a poster before. Well done. :rolleyes: