The role of soldier

[Da Skinna]

Watching Bill Moyers again this morning, I got to wondering about the role of soldiers.

I read as part of my American history class the novel "Johnny Got His Gun" wherein a soldier is felled, his mouth had been torn off, his ears have been forever silenced, his nose is a crater, his arms and his legs ripped from his body... but he is alive. And he is thinking. He is thinking forget democracy, forget freedom, forget all those words that have no qualitative meaning to me, I just want to live.

Soldiers are old enough to die for their country, but not old enough to vote within their country.

Soldiers make up the lowest of the low in society, captained by the toughest men in society, led by the smartest, and guided by the most cunning.

Take Moyers' essay on Obama letting Afghanistan define his presidency.

Listen to Tennyson's poem of the Charge of the Light Brigade:

"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Some one had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred."

The last requisite of a democracy, in my opinion, is the ability for the people to abstain from war. Not to get into the history of just which wars were worth it, worth fighting and worth dying for, but to understand why we go to war.

I know propaganda has gotten a bad rap since Goebbels... but Goebbels stole his ideas from the Americans, namely Edward Bernays.

The masses usually don't know what they want. That has long been agreed they cannot be rational in groups. As Nietzche has said, "madness is the exception in individuals but the rule in groups." Bernays' view, and the prevailing attitude of all those with power, arguably since the dawn of time, was that people must be led. But what about wars?

What about wars? Do people know whether they want to go to war? Can they be guided to, just like how they were guided to buy products, believe politicians, and etcetera etcetera we all know the rest. People can be made to vote or act in opposition of their best interests.

The question I submit is: have we ever chosen to go to war, of our own volition?

In my opinion, all wars have been imperial. It is only the rebellions and revolutions that were truly fought for freedom, qualitative freedom.


And who gets footed the bill? The soldier. The soldier who never got to vote to go to war. Surely, this is the most barbaric institution we force our brethren into. When they lay dying, is it "freedom" and "democracy" they are thinking about? Or do they just want to live to see their mother's faces again?

[Farnan]

Actually soldiers are old enough to vote in the US...

Main reason the age was lowered to 18 from 21 was Vietnam.

[El Brujo]

The question I submit is: have we ever chosen to go to war, of our own volition?

The American people frequently engaged the Indians in war against the wishes of the government. In many cases they didn't wait for the army to show up, but began sporadic fighting on their own.

[Da Skinna]

The American people frequently engaged the Indians in war against the wishes of the government. In many cases they didn't wait for the army to show up, but began sporadic fighting on their own.

Because the Injuns were in the way... hardly less deplorable.

[Farnan]

My post adresses your central concern.

[Da Skinna]

Because it was in the middle of my post doth not make it my central concern. What about other countries? And drafts? Conscription? Is that democracy?

[hellheaven1987]

Na, soldier... what do you expect their role when every war machine is just another political tool??

Seriously, unless military organization can be independant by themselves, there is no way for them to get out the "political tool" cage; however, hey, who would form an army just by "let burn the world, then burn it again!!"?? (Besides Khorne worshiper and Ork)

[Captain Jin]

The idea is that by joining you trust in your government that the sword and shield your military represents will be utilized in a just fashion. If in fact something perhaps comes up where you do not fully agree with it, that then becomes maybe a morale quandry for you. But there is something to be said about words like commitment and dedication.

Military members generally are more firm in those regards than civilians, which is why at times we may participate in something that we prefer not to. Take for instance Iraq, there are plenty of service members that may not agree with the reasons that we are there. But you took an oath, and ultimately you trust your government's judgement. Some say that's naive, but I feel like those that waffle over something because it becomes difficult don't have any sense of dedication or commitment.

I remember someone saying on infantry school once the Marines are the "Uneducated, led by the unwilling, to do the impossible, for the ungrateful". Whether it's true or not I don't know. I like to think of myself as educated.

The Marine Corps goes out of it's way to instill what we call a warrior ethos in the Marines. Many Marines kind of shrug it off as funny, because commanders and senior staff NCOs will try and compare us to the old days. They'll say stuff like we are the modern day Spartans, or the modern day legionaries or stuff like that. Most of the guys laugh and are like yeah whatever. But it's true when you think about it. We fight our country's wars and we perform very well. The Corps has etched itself a signficant and respectable history in the last 250 years and will continue to do so, and things that we've done and accomplished will be remember for hundreds of years and people will read about us like we read about Roman Legions and Spartans.

So in the end for many they are content to be a cog in the machinations of history if that makes sense. I take a great deal of pride in the fact that I fought in Fallujah for instance. All the side bs about the Iraq war aside, that's something that history will always remember, and being a big history buff (as many military members are) I can proudly say I was there, and that carries a lot of meaning for me.

It's hard to really pigeon hole the point of the soldier, or the role of the soldier. But essentially we are that sword and shield, and it's up to the government to use us wisely. It's like that bastard Upham says in Saving Private Ryan, "Ours is not to question why, ours is but to do or die". I had a Marine complaining about the fact that Obama was the president and going off about it and I said it doesn't matter, he's your commander and chief now and it's time to give him a shot. I think of myself as a loyal and committed individual and there are many like me, but that certainly leave room for misuse by the government. I dont know if any of that made sense but thats my take on it.

[Da Skinna]

The idea is that by joining you trust in your government that the sword and shield your military represents will be utilized in a just fashion. If in fact something perhaps comes up where you do not fully agree with it, that then becomes maybe a morale quandry for you. But there is something to be said about words like commitment and dedication.

Commitment and dedication overtake moral values for soldiers?

Military members generally are more firm in those regards than civilians, which is why at times we may participate in something that we prefer not to. Take for instance Iraq, there are plenty of service members that may not agree with the reasons that we are there. But you took an oath, and ultimately you trust your government's judgement. Some say that's naive, but I feel like those that waffle over something because it becomes difficult don't have any sense of dedication or commitment.

Is it so much a choice?

I remember someone saying on infantry school once the Marines are the "Uneducated, led by the unwilling, to do the impossible, for the ungrateful". Whether it's true or not I don't know. I like to think of myself as educated.

I think I have it here:
"We the unwilling, led by the unknowing are doing the impossible, for the ungrateful, we have done so much, for so long, with so little, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing."

There's more than one way to interpret that.

The Marine Corps goes out of it's way to instill what we call a warrior ethos in the Marines. Many Marines kind of shrug it off as funny, because commanders and senior staff NCOs will try and compare us to the old days. They'll say stuff like we are the modern day Spartans, or the modern day legionaries or stuff like that. Most of the guys laugh and are like yeah whatever. But it's true when you think about it. We fight our country's wars and we perform very well. The Corps has etched itself a signficant and respectable history in the last 250 years and will continue to do so, and things that we've done and accomplished will be remember for hundreds of years and people will read about us like we read about Roman Legions and Spartans.

Jarheads?

So in the end for many they are content to be a cog in the machinations of history if that makes sense. I take a great deal of pride in the fact that I fought in Fallujah for instance. All the side bs about the Iraq war aside, that's something that history will always remember, and being a big history buff (as many military members are) I can proudly say I was there, and that carries a lot of meaning for me.

I have admiration for those that can gut a war. Good job, sincerely.

But as a history buff, we can agree that not all wars are equal?

It's hard to really pigeon hole the point of the soldier, or the role of the soldier. But essentially we are that sword and shield, and it's up to the government to use us wisely. It's like that bastard Upham says in Saving Private Ryan, "Ours is not to question why, ours is but to do or die". I had a Marine complaining about the fact that Obama was the president and going off about it and I said it doesn't matter, he's your commander and chief now and it's time to give him a shot. I think of myself as a loyal and committed individual and there are many like me, but that certainly leave room for misuse by the government. I dont know if any of that made sense but thats my take on it.

Some wars are just flawed from the get-go. I supported the war in Afghanistan.. but now I do not think more soldiers will solve the problem. A peace corps perhaps.

The Afghani people are so disgusted the amount of corruption in the Karzai government they are flocking BACK to the Taliban. That is not a military but a political and logistical failure.

The Iraq War we know now wasn't conceived on the fly but designed by ultranationalists like Wolfowitz. They SOLD the war to the people through 9/11.

I hate to say it but we all know it's true that ALL tragedies can be exploited. Did we really think 3,000 dead in New York would shake people like Perle, Cheney and Rumsfeld?

These people are political animals that drove America into the ground, but they weren't the first, they just inherited a mentality from the Cold War era.

The role of the soldier, to put simply, is to serve the citizens of their nation. The role of the citizenry is to ensure that their soldiers aren't put in harm's way needlessly or pointlessly.

This is a good way of putting it. However we know people can be led to think and act in opposition of their best interests.

The idea of an informed and alert citizenry has never been realized in full in America.

[seal]

This is a good way of putting it. However we know people can be led to think and act in opposition of their best interests.

The idea of an informed and alert citizenry has never been realized in full in America.

Well that's the fault of individual citizens, isn't it? The masses may be swayed by a belligerent government through propaganda, but individual great thinkers and orators have the ability to do a little swaying of their own, and can discredit any governmental sponsored media blitz.

I believe the American people are more informed and alert than many give them credit for.

[Da Skinna]

Well that's the fault of individual citizens, isn't it? The masses may be swayed by a belligerent government through propaganda, but individual great thinkers and orators have the ability to do a little swaying of their own, and can discredit any governmental sponsored media blitz.

I believe the American people are more informed and alert than many give them credit for.

Then where's their democratic power?

Bernays believed in the pedagogue class, a teacher class but he thought they went through "sissification". They could not inform properly, they were too complacent and sissified to protest.

Television was a huge thing about that, a one-way medium to the public. What's sent is what's perceived.

[seal]

Then where's their democratic power?

Bernays believed in the pedagogue class, a teacher class but he thought they went through "sissification". They could not inform properly, they were too complacent and sissified to protest.

Television was a huge thing about that, a one-way medium to the public. What's sent is what's perceived.

The citizenry always have their democratic power, but at times they choose not to wield it, for whatever reason.

Interesting quote by Bernays. I'll have to look into that. That mirrors what I've been thinking lately. Do you know which book that idea comes from?

[Yorkshireman]

Some wars are just flawed from the get-go. I supported the war in Afghanistan.. but now I do not think more soldiers will solve the problem. A peace corps perhaps.

Depends how many peace corp members your willing to see die.

Christian aid worker murdered in Kabul.

http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/20...fghanistan.php

American aid worker reportedly murdered in Afghanistan.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/191463.php

Murder of German aid worker in Afghanistan.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...471473,00.html

5 MSF aid workers killed in Afghanistan.

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org...=press-release

Aid worker killed by Taliban.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...lliams-taliban

[Da Skinna]

Depends how many peace corp members your willing to see die.

Christian aid worker murdered in Kabul.

http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/20...fghanistan.php

American aid worker reportedly murdered in Afghanistan.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/191463.php

Murder of German aid worker in Afghanistan.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...471473,00.html

5 MSF aid workers killed in Afghanistan.

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org...=press-release

Aid worker killed by Taliban.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...lliams-taliban

That's about right...

The Coalition had a window and they ed it up. So now probably soldiers and a peace corps..

[Zephyrus]

The idea is that by joining you trust in your government that the sword and shield your military represents will be utilized in a just fashion. If in fact something perhaps comes up where you do not fully agree with it, that then becomes maybe a morale quandry for you. But there is something to be said about words like commitment and dedication.

Military members generally are more firm in those regards than civilians, which is why at times we may participate in something that we prefer not to. Take for instance Iraq, there are plenty of service members that may not agree with the reasons that we are there. But you took an oath, and ultimately you trust your government's judgement. Some say that's naive, but I feel like those that waffle over something because it becomes difficult don't have any sense of dedication or commitment.

I remember someone saying on infantry school once the Marines are the "Uneducated, led by the unwilling, to do the impossible, for the ungrateful". Whether it's true or not I don't know. I like to think of myself as educated.

The Marine Corps goes out of it's way to instill what we call a warrior ethos in the Marines. Many Marines kind of shrug it off as funny, because commanders and senior staff NCOs will try and compare us to the old days. They'll say stuff like we are the modern day Spartans, or the modern day legionaries or stuff like that. Most of the guys laugh and are like yeah whatever. But it's true when you think about it. We fight our country's wars and we perform very well. The Corps has etched itself a signficant and respectable history in the last 250 years and will continue to do so, and things that we've done and accomplished will be remember for hundreds of years and people will read about us like we read about Roman Legions and Spartans.

So in the end for many they are content to be a cog in the machinations of history if that makes sense. I take a great deal of pride in the fact that I fought in Fallujah for instance. All the side bs about the Iraq war aside, that's something that history will always remember, and being a big history buff (as many military members are) I can proudly say I was there, and that carries a lot of meaning for me.

It's hard to really pigeon hole the point of the soldier, or the role of the soldier. But essentially we are that sword and shield, and it's up to the government to use us wisely. It's like that bastard Upham says in Saving Private Ryan, "Ours is not to question why, ours is but to do or die". I had a Marine complaining about the fact that Obama was the president and going off about it and I said it doesn't matter, he's your commander and chief now and it's time to give him a shot. I think of myself as a loyal and committed individual and there are many like me, but that certainly leave room for misuse by the government. I dont know if any of that made sense but thats my take on it.

That also sums up my view on military service. I'd have rep'ed it if I could!

Even Socrates was a soldier. So was Leonidas. And Alexander. I respect those men more than Einstein and those involved in the Manhattan Project. If anybody has a better view of morality and philosophy, it would undoubtedly be the soldier who holds it. They sacrifice more of themselves than civilians do, therefore their opinion is worth more, to me at least.

[Maverick]

The idea is that by joining you trust in your government that the sword and shield your military represents will be utilized in a just fashion.

I think you will agree that for the most part soldiers are fighting against injustice rather than fighting for justice because there is always someone evil to go to war with but rarely someone good to go to war for.

If in fact something perhaps comes up where you do not fully agree with it, that then becomes maybe a morale quandry for you. But there is something to be said about words like commitment and dedication.

"Prussian Field Marshals don't mutiny".

"Commitment" and "dedication" are anachronisms Jin. In an age of total war you better be damn sure what you are fighting for.

[Ahlerich]

Watching Bill Moyers again this morning, I got to wondering about the role of soldiers.

I read as part of my American history class the novel "Johnny Got His Gun" wherein a soldier is felled, his mouth had been torn off, his ears have been forever silenced, his nose is a crater, his arms and his legs ripped from his body... but he is alive. And he is thinking. He is thinking forget democracy, forget freedom, forget all those words that have no qualitative meaning to me, I just want to live.

Soldiers are old enough to die for their country, but not old enough to vote within their country.

Soldiers make up the lowest of the low in society, captained by the toughest men in society, led by the smartest, and guided by the most cunning.

Take Moyers' essay on Obama letting Afghanistan define his presidency.

Listen to Tennyson's poem of the Charge of the Light Brigade:




The last requisite of a democracy, in my opinion, is the ability for the people to abstain from war. Not to get into the history of just which wars were worth it, worth fighting and worth dying for, but to understand why we go to war.

I know propaganda has gotten a bad rap since Goebbels... but Goebbels stole his ideas from the Americans, namely Edward Bernays.

The masses usually don't know what they want. That has long been agreed they cannot be rational in groups. As Nietzche has said, "madness is the exception in individuals but the rule in groups." Bernays' view, and the prevailing attitude of all those with power, arguably since the dawn of time, was that people must be led. But what about wars?

What about wars? Do people know whether they want to go to war? Can they be guided to, just like how they were guided to buy products, believe politicians, and etcetera etcetera we all know the rest. People can be made to vote or act in opposition of their best interests.

The question I submit is: have we ever chosen to go to war, of our own volition?

In my opinion, all wars have been imperial. It is only the rebellions and revolutions that were truly fought for freedom, qualitative freedom.


And who gets footed the bill? The soldier. The soldier who never got to vote to go to war. Surely, this is the most barbaric institution we force our brethren into. When they lay dying, is it "freedom" and "democracy" they are thinking about? Or do they just want to live to see their mother's faces again?

my view put in words better then i d be able too.

100% agrre which i rarely do.

[Gumpfendorfer]

And who gets footed the bill? The soldier. The soldier who never got to vote to go to war. Surely, this is the most barbaric institution we force our brethren into. When they lay dying, is it "freedom" and "democracy" they are thinking about? Or do they just want to live to see their mother's faces again?

Skinna,you cannot compare modern day armies with the 19th centuries. Its role has changed dramatically. It certainly isn't the most barbaric institution that exist.

I think Jin explains very well the general attitude of why people join the army and accept the consequences. And apart from what many think, they are quite well educated. How else are they going to use the high tech stuff.

The 'poor soldier'doesn't exist anymore. In the West its actual quite a good career opportunity. Nothing wrong with that.

As a soldier in a warzone you are much safer than a civilian. Modern day warfare is by and large taking control over large populations, it is also the main target, urban warfare is the most common. Weapons as mass starvation have become powerful weapons. 9 out 10 casulties are civilians. It is those who should be getting the poems. I've seen more bravery from civillians than others in warzones.

[Ahlerich]

Skinna,you cannot compare modern day armies with the 19th centuries. Its role has changed dramatically. It certainly isn't the most barbaric institution that exist.

I think Jin explains very well the general attitude of why people join the army and accept the consequences. And apart from what many think, they are quite well educated. How else are they going to use the high tech stuff.

The 'poor soldier'doesn't exist anymore. In the West its actual quite a good career opportunity. Nothing wrong with that.

As a soldier in a warzone you are much safer than a civilian. Modern day warfare is by and large taking control over large populations, it is also the main target, urban warfare is the most common. Weapons as mass starvation have become powerful weapons. 9 out 10 casulties are civilians. It is those who should be getting the poems. I've seen more bravery from civillians than others in warzones.

thats only true if you look at americas recent wars not wars in general.

in canada u get to visit university for free if you become a soldier. i think only this still attracts lots of poorer people to join up.

[hellheaven1987]

thats only true if you look at americas recent wars not wars in general.

in canada u get to visit university for free if you become a soldier. i think only this still attracts lots of poorer people to join up.

Well that is fine as long as those recruits know their duty and willing to obey.

I dislike recruits with half-heart.