All right, The_Llama, I’ll see if I can’t spell this out one more time before this thread is (I hope) locked.
In a world society based on economic competition and social inequality, war is often a necessary step in achieving political goals. Killing is an integral part of war, since the object of war is to try to make the price of fighting too steep for your enemies (von Clausewitz again). Killing in war is a necessity, and not an act of bravery. My opinion (which is not a “rule” by any stretch of the imagination) is that soldiers who killed more enemy combatants than their buddies in the battle are not heroes and should not be commended as such. They’re just doing the dirty job required of them by the political situation and the government they chose to serve.
In a world society based on economic cooperation and social justice, war will become irrelevant, with one exception - the historically necessary war to establish it. This is not because socialists are preternaturally bloodthirsty, but because their political goals irresolvably clash with the political interests of the old order. The old order, as I’ve noted many times before, isn’t going to give up their positions of power without a fight. Lenin understood the necessity of waging a war that made the price of fighting too steep for the Whites and did not shy away from attaching great importance to the necessary steps to achieve that goal. That doesn’t make him a hero; that makes him a strategist. I don’t consider Lenin a hero because of the war dead, I consider him a hero because I believe he had the right ideas and because he wasn’t afraid to build a world-changing movement around them.
Yeah, and Red-baiting still happens. Pointing out that I’m a Leninist, with the view of saying “Well, you’re anti-killing in this case but not in this case, so you’re obviously a hypocrite”, coupled with obvious ignorance of my stance on war, killing, and heroism in general (how many times have I restated it in this thread?), is an attempt to discredit my political views instead of debating them in anything close to approaching an honest manner.
You Red-baited. You’re a fucking jerk. Deal with it.
In WW1 and WW2 ordinary men off the street were put into heroic poistions. They, in many cases didn’t ask to be there, they were conscripted. Their countries needed them. The world had run amok. There were so many heroes. Men who longed to be home yet served because they were needed.
In Veitnam many were conscripted. The world had not run amok but many were pressed to serve.
In this war there may be heroic deeds, but every man/woman there chose to be there. There is no conscription. (well not on the allied side) At some point every single person there told themselves that the military was a job they could do. I so hope none of them anticipated war when they began that job, but they are not innocents nor are they the heroes of past wars. They are people doing the job they were employed for. They applied for that job knowing “join the army and drop bombs on people” was more then a crass anti slogan.
On BOTH sides of this war you can be sure there have been heroes but the US (and allies) on the ground are not innocents they put themselves in the military. When career day happened they thought…hmmmmmmm yeah that will work. I would never take away from their bravery but to call any soldier in this war a hero seems to take away from our past heroes, men forced into service to protect their country. Not people who chose a career.
These are people doing the job they signed up for. Too bad they were sent to a bad job that will only get worse.