I believe killing is killing, no matter what clothes you wear, or what kinda education you have.
We are in war, because we believe that 'they are going to hurt us, so we must hurt them', and as Ghandi said; and eye for an eye makes the world blind. They fight us, because we fight them. If my sister hits me, I hits back. But if I stop hitting, she'll stop too, 'cause who would hit someone who doesn't hit you?
I just don't believe there is anything good in war :( Let us be the wiser ones, and stop it. Help rebuilt, let them destroy, but keep rebuilding, sooner or later they will stop destroying what we are doing. Ghandi proved that it could be done.
There will always be a loss of life, but why do we have to be the one to cause it?

This I think is funny. The constant 'tone it done' attitude is the reason I hardly post. I obviously cannot speak my mind. Yet, what rules am I breaking? What attitudes have all these same people put out that we (being staff) have had to have discussions over if it was flaming or not? This is really two-sided. I am done with this shit.

Vompire
Most people have to have the last say/hit. That is not always true.

Everyone
Enjoy this discussion. Since it obviously is only that and not a debate.

I can't believe so many people think soldiers are these horrible immoral cretins! They're trying to help the people of Afganistan.

And as far as Iraq goes I was against it completely, but it's not the soldier's fault thay had to go there, it's the governments who sent them.

its the hole they go in spend countless hours in fear with a gun and bombs and stuff like that then they come back and alot of them don't know how to function in society and some are dubed heroes.

Originally Posted by Demon_of_the_Sand

its the hole they go in spend countless hours in fear with a gun and bombs and stuff like that then they come back and alot of them don't know how to function in society and some are dubed heroes.

People sympathize with soldiers because they have to endure such atrocities. The simple act of enduring war is enough to classify a soldier a 'hero' in minds of some people. As I said before and I agree with Huffie your argument is misdirected and attacking the wrong people.

With enduring war lits like how bout oil drillers or men and women who work on tugboats? they can loose there life in an instant or off goes a finger shouldn't they be heroes? nope. Its like Mr. Pink in Reservoir Dogs why do we feel the need to tip this person but not that person? why should we call soldiers heroes but not oil drillers?

I'm not sure you can compare working on a tugboat to working in a warzone. :lol:

but without them shipping cargo would be more difficult. they all have a job I just don't think one job should classify their works as heroes.

But the two jobs are so completely different! :lol: I mean, it's not just the risk to personal safety that makes people look to soldiers in a certain way. In a warzone you'd see a lot of horrible things; civillians and colleages being killed in front of you comes to mind. For them to want to go into a place like that in the name of keeping the peace is very admirable, at least to me it is. :)

Originally Posted by Huffie

I can't believe so many people think soldiers are these horrible immoral cretins! They're trying to help the people of Afganistan.

And as far as Iraq goes I was against it completely, but it's not the soldier's fault thay had to go there, it's the governments who sent them.

No, it isn't the soldiers fault that they are going there. :| They can't choose their war! I don't know what kinda system you have, but in Denmark they don't force people in war, which is a nice thing. But it sucks when they tell about danish soldiers who died. They are all like '1 SOLDIER IS DEAD!!1! ONE IS HURT!!!11!' And I'm like; "Yeeeah, one.. Just because we are a small country, doesn't mean that 1 dead person means more than the 300 persons that USA or something lost.."

But I do believe, that you are missing a piece of your humanity, when you can kill another human being. Is it really that easy to just, shoot them? You can't undo it. When they are dead, they are dead forever. That's whats bothering me about war :?

Originally Posted by Huffie

In a warzone you'd see a lot of horrible things; civillians and colleages being killed in front of you comes to mind.

You forgot to mention all the dead enemies =3 Dead people are dead people no matter if they are civilians or colleges.

Originally Posted by Demon_of_the_Sand

With enduring war lits like how bout oil drillers or men and women who work on tugboats? they can loose there life in an instant or off goes a finger shouldn't they be heroes? nope. Its like Mr. Pink in Reservoir Dogs why do we feel the need to tip this person but not that person? why should we call soldiers heroes but not oil drillers?

Public perception. What's your point? I'm not consider a hero by the public and I have no control over that, I can't make the public like me. Likewise you can't force the public to stop idolizing soldiers. Public perception is not fair and balanced thus why the oil drillers are not celebrated. Either way it is not the oil driller's fault the public don't like him and it's not the soldier's fault the public idolize him- so why blame him for something beyond his control?

But I do believe, that you are missing a piece of your humanity, when you can kill another human being. Is it really that easy to just, shoot them? You can't undo it. When they are dead, they are dead forever. That's whats bothering me about war :?

Well, that's why people who have been at war have such a hard time adjusting and feeling normal, it does affect people for life.
Nobody likes war, but sometimes it's a neccessary action I think. For example; world war II. If Britain and France hadn't declared war on Nazi Germany the Nazi regime would have continued, grown and resulted int he deaths of even more people than were killed as it is. :(

You forgot to mention all the dead enemies =3 Dead people are dead people no matter if they are civilians or colleges.

That's true I suppose, in a way, but the point remains the same. :lol:

Originally Posted by Huffie

Well, that's why people who have been at war have such a hard time adjusting and feeling normal, it does affect people for life.
Nobody likes war, but sometimes it's a neccessary action I think. For example; world war II. If Britain and France hadn't declared war on Nazi Germany the Nazi regime would have continued, grown and resulted int he deaths of even more people than were killed as it is. :(

This is incorrect. If France and Britain had done nothing, then Nazi Germany would have continued. However, there are many more ways to fight than to act in irresponsible, violent ways. This has been proven time and time again throughout history.

In fact, it happened often in WWII, notably throughout Germany and Denmark. Resistances, perhaps the biggest being the Danish Resistance Movement, fought against Nazis in highly effective, nonviolent ways. They saved thousands of Jews over the course of the war, and often times thwarted German plans, simply by outsmarting them.

War is not necessary; action is.

Also, on the topic of Nazis. Why are Nazis worse than American soldiers? They had just as much control over their actions as American soldiers do today. Many say that soldiers are not to blame, they can't control what the government does! Neither could Nazis, yet we rightfully consider their actions horrible.

In fact, it happened often in WWII, notably throughout Germany and Denmark. Resistances, perhaps the biggest being the Danish Resistance Movement, fought against Nazis in highly effective, nonviolent ways. They saved thousands of Jews over the course of the war, and often times thwarted German plans, simply by outsmarting them.

I'm sorry, it's not that I don't believe you, but can you give me a source for that? :)

Also, on the topic of Nazis. Why are Nazis worse than American soldiers? They had just as much control over their actions as American soldiers do today. Many say that soldiers are not to blame, they can't control what the government does! Neither could Nazis, yet we rightfully consider their actions horrible.

Well (and we're not just talking about American soldiers, remember!), I think what the nazis did was much more plainly wrong, I mean, I don't know of any recent political activities which called to slaughter thousands of people for no real reason (although certainly there has been shady activity among some). But I do see what you mean, I'm sure lots of nazi soldiers only followed orders out of fear of the consequences, and as we know quite a few of them discretely made efforts to help Jews etc.

Originally Posted by Kris

This is incorrect. If France and Britain had done nothing, then Nazi Germany would have continued. However, there are many more ways to fight than to act in irresponsible, violent ways. This has been proven time and time again throughout history.

In fact, it happened often in WWII, notably throughout Germany and Denmark. Resistances, perhaps the biggest being the Danish Resistance Movement, fought against Nazis in highly effective, nonviolent ways. They saved thousands of Jews over the course of the war, and often times thwarted German plans, simply by outsmarting them.

War is not necessary; action is.

Denmark was occupied by Germany! They did not liberate themselves through non-violent ways- they did it by aiding the allies and sabotaging Nazi plans. People were stilled killed under Nazi occupation in Denmark despite Denmark's efforts to present a passives facade.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that every war in history is necessary or could have been fought differently. But there are some cases when you get nut jobs like Hitler who go off on one and start invading countries and killing lots of people, which makes life very hard especially when you have signed treaties ect.
The second world war could have been preventable if we hadn't made the mistakes that we did after the first world war.

Originally Posted by Huffie

I'm sorry, it's not that I don't believe you, but can you give me a source for that? :)



Well (and we're not just talking about American soldiers, remember!), I think what the nazis did was much more plainly wrong, I mean, I don't know of any recent political activities which called to slaughter thousands of people for no real reason (although certainly there has been shady activity among some). But I do see what you mean, I'm sure lots of nazi soldiers only followed orders out of fear of the consequences, and as we know quite a few of them discretely made efforts to help Jews etc.

Sure. The Danish Resistance Movement helped sabotage the German army many times in WWII, and got 7,000 (of Denmark's 8,000) Jews into Sweden, making them safe and free.
Here's a brief article on it: The Danish Resistance There is much on the Danish Resistance in WWII, and they were brave, valiant, and kept thousands of troops in Germany on D-Day, saved countless Jews, and, in general, worked against the Germans by simply out-smarting them.

One of the most amazing stories of Germany Resistance is The White Rose. They were a small group of students led by their philosophy professor ( 8) *proud philosophy student*) to make pamphlets detailing the actions of the Nazis and distributed it to Scandinavian nations and America. It seems like a small act, but they got out much important information, and did so in the face of death.
The White Rose / die Weiße Rose, German resistance group during ww2 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Wikipedia has a very good time-line of different movements.
Resistance during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

--

The severity of their actions is not important in this discussion. The point is: Why do you hate Nazis, but not American soldiers today? Both had/have the same amount of control over their actions. Both can control their actions. Yet, when you disagree with Nazi Germany, you say that Nazis, German soldiers of the time, were ruthless, horrible killers, but if American soldiers act in the same manner, they are unmarked heroes for their country?

This does not make sense. They can both control their actions and are both equally responsible for the things which they did.

Originally Posted by una

Denmark was occupied by Germany! They did not liberate themselves through non-violent ways- they did it by aiding the allies and sabotaging Nazi plans. People were stilled killed under Nazi occupation in Denmark despite Denmark's efforts to present a passives facade.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that every war in history is necessary or could have been fought differently. But there are some cases when you get nut jobs like Hitler who go off on one and start invading countries and killing lots of people, which makes life very hard especially when you have signed treaties ect.
The second world war could have been preventable if we hadn't made the mistakes that we did after the first world war.

Yes, Denmark was occupied by Germany, however, they were not at war with Germany and, legally, had independence. However, there was still a Danish Resistance Movement which did save thousands of Jews and, nearer the end of the war, did stage many acts of sabotage.

If governments acted like we teach our toddlers to act (don't solve your problem with your fists), and if they were to give peace a chance before grossly over-funding expensive bombs, then we might have seen many less wars. Of course, for a government to do such a thing, it will take significant egging on by the people. However, most people, not unlike those in this thread, remain jaded and bitter about any idea of peace, and continue to blindly worship soldiers for their gallant acts of "heroism".

Okay, I think I'm gonna go with Una on that one, it sounds so terribly plausible. :D

The severity of their actions is not important in this discussion. The point is: Why do you hate Nazis, but not American soldiers today? Both had/have the same amount of control over their actions. Both can control their actions. Yet, when you disagree with Nazi Germany, you say that Nazis, German soldiers of the time, were ruthless, horrible killers, but if American soldiers act in the same manner, they are unmarked heroes for their country?

This does not make sense. They can both control their actions and are both equally responsible for the things which they did.

Oh I think the severity is very important! But in any case, what have soldiers in Afghanistan done wrong? :lol:
Well, it doesn't matter anyway because this is all getting awfully off-topic, isn't it? The subject is whether or not you see soldiers as heroes/why they are seen as heroes by a large amount of people, yes? :)

If governments acted like we teach our toddlers to act (don't solve your problem with your fists), and if they were to give peace a chance before grossly over-funding expensive bombs, then we might have seen many less wars. Of course, for a government to do such a thing, it will take significant egging on by the people. However, most people, not unlike those in this thread, remain jaded and bitter about any idea of peace, and continue to blindly worship soldiers for their gallant acts of "heroism".

Woah now, I don't 'blindly worship' soldiers, and I disagree with the government often, but that's nothing to do with the soldiers themselves. I think when people find something unacceptable, they do say something about it, just look at the Iraq inquiry!

Originally Posted by Huffie

Okay, I think I'm gonna go with Una on that one, it sounds so terribly plausible. :D

What are you going with Una about?

Oh I think the severity is very important! But in any case, what have soldiers in Afghanistan done wrong? :lol:
Well, it doesn't matter anyway because this is all getting awfully off-topic, isn't it? The subject is whether or not you see soldiers as heroes/why they are seen as heroes by a large amount of people, yes? :)

You seem to be missing the point.
Soldiers can control their actions. If the army does something you disagree with, you should not twiddle your thumbs and pretend that the soldiers are white knights or are perfectly innocent. They had, just like the Nazis had, every right to resist their orders and to step away from that which you disagree with. So, why is it that we call the Nazis monsters for their wrongdoings, but not modern-day American soldiers?

This is perfectly on topic. We are talking about whether or not American soldiers are heroes, and this is one aspect of that. If anything, our discussion on whether or not war is necessary is much more off-topic, and for that to be your only rebuttal is not satisfactory for a debate.

Woah now, I don't 'blindly worship' soldiers, and I disagree with the government often, but that's nothing to do with the soldiers themselves. I think when people find something unacceptable, they do say something about it, just look at the Iraq inquiry!

I did not say that you specifically blindly worship soldiers, however, it happens, and it happens often.

You know, Kris, it's very difficult to discuss things with you when you keep by-passing my points. :( I also feel like you're coming across oddly aggressive in a friendly discussion. This isn't even a real debate in any case, I should think that would be obvious.

Originally Posted by Kris

Yes, Denmark was occupied by Germany, however, they were not at war with Germany and, legally, had independence. However, there was still a Danish Resistance Movement which did save thousands of Jews and, nearer the end of the war, did stage many acts of sabotage.

Ultimately this would have not stopped the Nazi invasion. Denmark was given 'independence' so the Nazi's could pretend that they were protecting the Danes from a British-Franco invasion. Which was a cloak to disguise the various strategical advantages for occupying Denmark and Norway. The Danish Resistance fought the Nazi's in a very covert way to minimize causalities and help the allied forces- which was basically aiding the other country using the violent techniques to stop the Nazi invasion.

Originally Posted by Kris

If governments acted like we teach our toddlers to act (don't solve your problem with your fists), and if they were to give peace a chance before grossly over-funding expensive bombs, then we might have seen many less wars. Of course, for a government to do such a thing, it will take significant egging on by the people. However, most people, not unlike those in this thread, remain jaded and bitter about any idea of peace, and continue to blindly worship soldiers for their gallant acts of "heroism".

I believe that war should be avoided at all costs and non-violent solutions should sought after first. Wars are different in nature so it is hard to speculate whether violence was necessary or not. Nazi invasion is a very hard problem to solve without resorting to violence where as the war in Afghanistan would benefit without the violence. Pomegranate farming in Afghanistan is an example of a non-violent method that gets people away from the opium trade.

Originally Posted by Kris

This is incorrect. If France and Britain had done nothing, then Nazi Germany would have continued. However, there are many more ways to fight than to act in irresponsible, violent ways. This has been proven time and time again throughout history.

In fact, it happened often in WWII, notably throughout Germany and Denmark. Resistances, perhaps the biggest being the Danish Resistance Movement, fought against Nazis in highly effective, nonviolent ways. They saved thousands of Jews over the course of the war, and often times thwarted German plans, simply by outsmarting them.

War is not necessary; action is.

Also, on the topic of Nazis. Why are Nazis worse than American soldiers? They had just as much control over their actions as American soldiers do today. Many say that soldiers are not to blame, they can't control what the government does! Neither could Nazis, yet we rightfully consider their actions horrible.

You have indeed right in saying that most of Denmark did nothing. But I think, that the resistance Movement bombed the rails, bridges and and factories. Created so much havoc as they could. I don't remember much about it, but I believe they killed some, but mostly did, so the Germans couldn't transport troops. Which, is outsmarting them I guess :ninja: But it would be harder today, 'cause they can't just destroy rails to stop war.

But have anyone thought of a way to stop the 'enemies' besides war?

Are we assuming all soldiers are snipers. Ask the child in Iran that got medical care they needed from a military doctor if that doctor is a hero. Ask the ones that are now getting water from wells dug by army engineers. Ask the girls now getting an education in Afganistan. When the taliban ruled girls were not educated. Not all soldiers are good or all bad. They are just people and just like regular people Yes there are heros. What have we done lately to help some one. Threw a few bucks to a charity. They are out there with the unfortunates of the world and do more than just shoot people. They also provide medical care, build houses, dig wells and provide protection for thousands. If you sit at home here in America in safety and are free to speak your mind it is because soldiers fought and died for you to do it. Go to China, Iraq, or North Korea and try it. You are free because someone died to make you free. Those soldiers are certainly for the most part my heros.

I prefer not to be trite, but
Hate the war, not the poor bastards over there fighting it.
And yes, I believe soldiers are heroes. Not all of them, and a person doesn't have to be a soldier to be a hero, but someone who puts their life on the line to keep me safe is a hero. Because whether or not you believe that's what they're doing, it's what they believe they're doing. And yes, I think 'the enemy' soldiers are heroes too. Not my heroes, but heroes to the people they are trying to protect. Whether you agree with the war or not, they're putting their lives on the line for you. And the least you can do to repay that is acknowledge that fact and give them some respect. And if you're not from the US or if you're a pacifist, can you at least respect the fact that by enlisting they're risking their lives for their beliefs. Believe it or not, its the same courage all your non-violent examples tapped into. It's the willingness to face death for what you believe. That's what makes them heroes.

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream–and not make dreams your master,
If you can think–and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ‘em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: “Hold on!”

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings–nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much,
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And–which is more–you’ll be a Man, my son!


–Rudyard Kipling

That's a hero, and nothing that we "Sons of Mary" say can change the debt we owe to the "Sons of Martha".

Until they bring our boys back home.

I don't think soldiers are heroes, that's just a way of romanticising war to attract more guys to enlist.
War isn't as glorious as the government makes it sound, just take a look at the Vietnam war. Children, women, civilians and elderly were the biggest victims, walking around with their entire bodies burnt because of the Napalm, entire villages burnt down and those who live there shot to death.

And really, what good did it do anyone? Back then it was said America was there to "help Vietnam".

That being said, I don't think anyone contributing to this kind of massacre should be called a hero, running around shooting everyone in your way to prevent them from killing you first is not something you should be praised for, or even want to do in the first place. :(

Originally Posted by Fashion

[SIZE="1"][B]I don't think soldiers are heroes, that's just a way of romanticising war to attract more guys to enlist.
War isn't as glorious as the government makes it sound, just take a look at the Vietnam war. Children, women, civilians and elderly were the biggest victims, walking around with their entire bodies burnt because of the Napalm, entire villages burnt down and those who live there shot to death.

And really, what good did it do anyone? Back then it was said America was there to "help Vietnam".

true. but fighting in Afghanistan is not the Vietnam war. the soldiers/ other military personel (let's not all blame it on the army), have been trained to fight in that type of enviroment. they have been trained to think on their feet and make quick desicions.

furthermore. rules or engagement state (at least for the marines) that you are not to shoot at ANYBODY until you have a positive ID that they are the one shooting at you; even then, you start again with the escilation of force.
and you do not shoot until you have a safe shot! (basically you can not shoot if there are civilians behind the shooter).

but tell me. when a terrorist plows through a security check-point with a cement truck filled with improviesed exploding devices and chlorine (which eats through the issued gas masks, and large amounts of this gas will liquify your alveoli in your lungs, resulting in a quick death if not treated in time.) in to a base in ramadi, and detonates. killing 6 (from the explosion), and injuring more than 350 military and civilians (Desert Flier: Chlorine VBIED attack in Ramadi) . How do you fight an enemy that fights like that?

when they have little to no objections to injuring their own countrymen; and they are so ready to sacrifice themselves. most times it's not even that simple!
the current tactic in Afghanistan for the Taliban, is to shoot a couple of shots, then run away (while stowing or throwing away your weapon).

and yes, I do think that soldiers are hero worshipped, but they need it don't they?
they need some motovation to do their best when times seem tough out there. they need a remimder of why they are risking their lives for the rights and freedoms of a stranger, (and even the rights and freedoms for the people that are shooting at them).

but then again, what is a hero?

he⋅ro  /ˈhɪəroʊ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [heer-oh] Show IPA
–noun, plural -roes; for 5 also -ros.
1. a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities.
2. a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal: He was a local hero when he saved the drowning child.

i guess that it's all in your opinion, no one is right or wrong. it's just how you see the world and life presented to you.
(Hero | Definition of Hero at Dictionary.com:)