Why is it that within the Western World, soldiers are automatically labeled "heroes" and "heroic".

I don't understand this position, after all, they are doing a job; which entails accepting authority. Clearly, they often don't have the moral capability (or choose to ignore it) to make their own decisions and decide to abstain from something which is clearly detrimental to others.

To be perfectly honest, I don't like hearing about the deaths of soldiers, as fundamentally, they are still humans. However, the function of a soldier is to fight, and if they die during that fight, why should they be praised, labeled, honoured or commemorated; especially in cases which are dubious, and clearly aren't for the greater good (Iraq War, Afghanistan etc) In WW2, then yes, the intention of involvement was not selfless by any means, but they SHOULD be commemorated for doing what they done, as they actually *drum roll* SAVED LIVES!

Soldiers are clearly murderers for the state. I am not suggesting that they are not necessary - as everyone else has an army - but nevertheless, they are killers, or can play an indirect role in murder.

I have spoke to a limited amount of soldiers I know in real life, and most of their reasons were:

1) Money
2) Shooting "rag heads"
3) Shooting "P*kis
4) Pension

I am not saying this is reflective of all or even the majority of soldiers, but it doesn't look too good does it? It seems that people who are soldiers tend to be the ones who have no other option, no other career choice; and thus do not think about the option very much, and just grab it, as they have no other opportunity (potentially their own fault).

To be honest, if someone said to me:

"You can be poor and live on the street, or you can go to Iraq and fight for 'our country'"

I think I would have to opt for the former. Based on my moral judgement.

Therefore, I come to the conclusion that it is absurd to praise soldiers all the time. If we are to praise them, we should praise them on their actions, or involvement in something; not merely because they are a soldier. Especially when they are blindly following orders, which are seen as abhorrent and immoral by the majority of people - again, the example of Iraq.

Surely, a person has to be pretty screwed up to accept commands like that? Despite the clear evidence that it is immoral?

If we didn't have people willing to be in the military, you wouldn't have people from the US being able to post to you.

We would LOVE to have war where people aren't killed, but greater minds than yours have not come up with a way to do that.

Murder? That's different than war.

This post of yours speaking against the people that do this job isn't worth the "paper is it written on" it is disgusting.

Thanks to people in the military, I still have to right to say this.

You are totally ignoring the point. I clearly said that it is important that a state has an army, as everyone already has one.

No, murder is murder. Intentionally killing somebody is murder, although, there are mitigating factors (Self-defence etc)

And NO thanks to the State and it's ARMY, eventually/potentially you WONT have the ability to say anything on these drug forums, nor criticise anything in ANY way. Armys do not DEFEND FREE SPEECH, the state GRANTS US IT.

War should only happen if necessary - to prevent genocide etc - not for economic means.. USA clearly murder people... Look at Hiroshima? Nuking a country and killing 100,000 people or something?

No thanks.

The military does not practice Democracy, they defend it. You only have the right to spout the garbage you just spouted because soldiers did what they were commanded and defended your freedom. Without people willing to kill or be killed for the rights of others, you would live under the rule of the person who was the most brutal. Violent and cruel people can only be stopped by violence. You may not like that, but those are the facts of life. Does that give anyone who is a soldier a free pass to do whatever they want? Of course not. But as a whole, warriors of Democracy have earned the respect of those they have protected.

No, anyone killed is not murder, no.

You don't understand the free speech at all. The ONLY REASON WE HAVE IT is because someone faught to keep us FREE.

WHEN did they defend my freedom? I am not doubting that some time in the DISTANT PAST they did, but currently, they are protecting the interests of the bourgeoisie - the capitalists.

Anyone with any sense can see this... Only if the state read your constitution and what the founding fathers said..

NO, clearly, the STATE of the COUNTRY, YES THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS INSTITUITIONS grant us IT.

Are you from the UK?

Yes.

And before you suggest it, I don't particularly like the country I was born in, nor do I agree with the majority of its actions (barbaric or not)

Then talk about your own military and country, not ours.

Our military is what kept us free from England.

U.S.S.R more likely.
Saw the UK edit.
Poor bloke.

Stacy, is this some fascist regime you are trying to implement? Talk about freedom of speech... I shouldn't talk about your military? I am talking about Iraq in general, including the scum who went in from UK. Wiping out Native Americans, that is your speciality isn't it? Genocide they call it these days..

Rochelle5mg, and no, I am not from the USSR. As it currently doesn't exist, if you didn't know? Heh. The USSR was a sham, and was just a totalitarian despotic dictatorship under the guise of socialism

America wouldn't be yours, if you didn't commit genocide.

Let me tell you something, you've pissed me off. YOU DON'T EVEN LIVE HERE and you are going to speak against our country and our military? Who the hell do you think you are?

I've had friends and relatives that have DIED to protect MY FREEDOMS, not yours.

Even if I don't agree with a war, I do NOT TURN ON THE SOLDIERS and I'll tell you another thing. I'll FIGHT TO THE DEATH to defend the people of our military.

What experience do you have to know about OUR MILITARY, our freedoms, etc?

If you were discussing something, that would be different, but you have come here and said HORRIBLE things about the men and women of our military.

I won't tell you what you can do with that.

Oh, I see, you are an anarchist. It always amazes me that most people that want anarchy are usually skinny little geeks. These are the first people who would be slaughtered for fun if the police and Rules did not keep them safe. Just a generalization. I'm sure you can defend yourself

We wouldn't have needed an America if England didn't kill those that didn't do what they said or allowed people FREDDOM OF RELIGION.

Got any more?

Stacy, as I said, I am not defending England - just because I live here, it doesn't mean I enjoy their practices or any other abhorrent rubbish they committed. Is that your way of justifying genocide - killing the indigenous population of part of Americas?

tjt2300, my philosophical and political views do lean towards Anarchism. However, I am not trying to attempt to say that it would be easy to implement - or perhaps it is simply to utopian? I don't know, and it's not something I can just figure out in a few minutes, either.

It depends on your view of human nature really - and whether it existed. But now we are getting into the realms of political philosophy, which gets immensely complicated; and I do not feel I am adequately equipped to dela with such a conversation. If you adopt the attitude, that generally, humans are naturally compassionate and kind - maybe through egoistical motives - then anarchism could easily work. However, it could also be argued that Capitalism has already corrupted man ad infinitum, or even the Hobbesian view that the state of nature was a "war of all against all". And humans are naturally "selfish" and primarily concerned with "self-preservation".

You talking about the Native American Indians?

I'm not even going to satisfy this ignorant idiot with a reply.

This a$$ almost makes me ashamed to be of British ancestry.

Stacy, it is not worth the time talking with someone who insults those who have made it possible to live in freedom. Some people are so bored and spoiled by freedom, they need something to complain about. He probably just had his first college class and thinks he knows how the world operates. Facts are, if he was in China his brains would be splattered on a wall and his family would be paying for the bullet.

Yes. People like YOU are supporters of genocide like that. I am not pointing the blame at any particular country here.

Oh goody, I was hoping you would say that. I believe I have a place to speak on this....considering my great-great grandfather was "Black Dutch" and all.

Know what that is?

AMERICAN INDIAN.

So see, those were MY PEOPLE that died and guess what? The people in Europe, those are my people too. The other side of my family is there.

Yes, my European side came over here to have freedom and yes, some of them did things they shouldn't have, a lot of humans have through out the time.

The difference, some learned to be better people, some didn't.

So I've got a dog in both those races and you saying people that believe in our freedoms support genocide....sorry, that argument doesn't even make sense.

Don't worry.. Brisbain will be along soon enough to explain it and I mean that
in a flattering way. Her immense knowledge is remarkable and I look forward
to learning from her wisdom and experience.
Hopefully she will respond to your thread.

Rochelle5mg, I'll be happy to talk a bit of Philosophy with somebody. It's just that if the other doesn't know much about Political Philosophy, it gets confusing. Have a read of Bakunin, Kryptonin and Hobbes etc.. All very interesting fellows.

Stacy, arguing that your great-great-great-aunties-brothers-mothers-hamsters-father was X ethnicity has VERY LITTLE relevance. Because we are all mixed anyway, it doesn't matter.

I don't see a logical fallacy anywhere... You basically condoned the genocide of the Native Americans because of England's draconian implementation of religious orthodoxy.

Can you actually READ AND COMPREHEND?

I AM NATIVE AMERICAN YOU .......

I didn't suggest that wasn't the case?

"We wouldn't have needed an America if England didn't kill those that didn't do what they said or allowed people FREDDOM OF RELIGION."

That suggests advocation to me.

Again you say I condone genocide.

Called an ad hominem (though the first I've seen saying I condone killing my own people) cg0000.

You say it was genocide.

I believe in my freedoms as an American.

Therefore I condone genocide.

Ad hominem at it's finest considering you threw that in there as my own people were the ones that died.

BTW, for me, this one can be filed where the sun don't shine, also.

No, it wasn't argumentum ad hominem. Rather, it was just a fairly illogical argument of mine, to which I admit. That isn't ad hominem as I wasn't basing it on the premise you outlined.

However, everything else I have said, I stand to. Apart from the fact that you condone genocide, as there is no substantive evidence to suggest that is true.

I like it how people dismiss me as stupid, young, naive etc... merely because I hold a different view point from them. Admittedly, I really ought to structure this argument a lot better and outline clear and concise logical premises.

You've give me food for thought; despite the insults, I thank you for participation.

Look jerk,

SHOW ME WHERE I SAID I CONDONE GENOCIDE.

Dismissing your has nothing to do with a different viewpoint. It has to do with your use of ad hominem, WHICH YOU DID AND DO and you making statements as stupid as 'YOU CONDONE GENOCIDE'.

Clear?