Why do People Have Such High Regard for Soldiers?

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

I don't understand what's heroic about professional killers.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

It depends on the reason they are killing.

I have no real respect for the ISAF, and certainly hatred of the Nazis and other armies like that. I have quite a bit of respect for the guerillas of the Irish war of Indepedence, or the Allies of WWII.

You can't generalize this topic in any way. Name some soldiers and we will tell you what we think of them.

[PhilipO'Hayda]

It depends on the reason they are killing.

I have no real respect for the ISAF, and certainly hatred of the Nazis and other armies like that. I have quite a bit of respect for the guerillas of the Irish war of Indepedence, or the Allies of WWII.

You can't generalize this topic in any way. Name some soldiers and we will tell you what we think of them.

unless your a Ulster Scot then your going to look at people like Michael Collins as the killers and murders. in total a Soldier is a man who will do the dirty work, for little pay.
fame is given to them from the government for doing what they need them to do.
glory is given to them by women for there high testosterone.

I don't understand what's heroic about professional killers.

and heroic is given because the battlefield is were History can be changed.

[Apologist]

I'd like to bring up a point for all those who share this view:

I have no real respect for the ISAF, and certainly hatred of the Nazis and other armies like that. I have quite a bit of respect for the guerillas of the Irish war of Indepedence, or the Allies of WWII.

Why do you hate those armies?

Because they were the enemy, simply put.

In the countries of origin for those armies and forces, the citizens most likely regard them as heroes, much in the way that we respect and honour our veterans of today. They probably feel the exact same about our armies as we do of theirs. The topic is very subjective, and you simply cannot look at it from only your perspective.

[Helm]

Because they're prepared to die defending your freedom or something along those lines.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Because they're prepared to die defending your freedom or something along those lines.

or they might be prepared to kill to take it away, or just because...

[Helm]

I was assuming he meant our soldiers rather than Taliban soldiers.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

If it's too generalized I will narrow it down to one example.

What about ANZAC (Australia-New Zealand) soldeirs in WW1? In Australia they get their own public holiday and everything, because many "died to defend our country", however this makes no sense. They mainly fought against the Ottomans, which were hardly a threat to national security. I will acknowledge that their last ruler was a genocidal madman, however, being dragged into a war by Britain (who shouldn't have joined in the first place), is hardly in the interests of preserving Australia's freedom. Sailing off to kill Muslims is hardly heroicism. Although I will acknowledge the good deeds of 21st century peacekeeping soldiers.

[Their Law]

If it's too generalized I will narrow it down to one example.

What about ANZAC (Australia-New Zealand) soldeirs in WW1? In Australia they get their own public holiday and everything, because many "died to defend our country", however this makes no sense. They mainly fought against the Ottomans, which were hardly a threat to national security. I will acknowledge that their last ruler was a genocidal madman, however, being dragged into a war by Britain (who shouldn't have joined in the first place), is hardly in the interests of preserving Australia's freedom. Sailing off to kill Muslims is hardly heroicism. Although I will acknowledge the good deeds of 21st century peacekeeping soldiers.

And so you've decided that extrapolating a single example from perhaps one of the most pointless wars in history means you can apply a blanket rule across all conflicts and periods?

[The Dude]

If it's too generalized I will narrow it down to one example.

What about ANZAC (Australia-New Zealand) soldeirs in WW1? In Australia they get their own public holiday and everything, because many "died to defend our country", however this makes no sense. They mainly fought against the Ottomans, which were hardly a threat to national security. I will acknowledge that their last ruler was a genocidal madman, however, being dragged into a war by Britain (who shouldn't have joined in the first place), is hardly in the interests of preserving Australia's freedom. Sailing off to kill Muslims is hardly heroicism. Although I will acknowledge the good deeds of 21st century peacekeeping soldiers.

Well in this case, and I don't know a lot about NZ/Aussie history, it seems as though their efforts at Galipoli were being honored. I mean, that has got to be the most pointless and bloody invasion for no reason, ever. It takes some serious mental stamina to come out of a hellhole like that alive, or to even dare advance at your enemy.

Of course the politicians will call it "dying to defend our country", but everyone knows what it is. That's just PC speak, they can't exactly say "died in the most pointless deployment of anzac troops ever, but hey, every individual man there had courage and guts."

[Richard]

If it's too generalized I will narrow it down to one example.

What about ANZAC (Australia-New Zealand) soldeirs in WW1? In Australia they get their own public holiday and everything, because many "died to defend our country", however this makes no sense. They mainly fought against the Ottomans, which were hardly a threat to national security. I will acknowledge that their last ruler was a genocidal madman, however, being dragged into a war by Britain (who shouldn't have joined in the first place), is hardly in the interests of preserving Australia's freedom. Sailing off to kill Muslims is hardly heroicism. Although I will acknowledge the good deeds of 21st century peacekeeping soldiers.

It's interesting isn't it. I have respect for they went through (minus the killing) but not why they did it. That's more a sense of pity.

I wouldn't make a good soldier, be more inclined to put a bullet in the guy telling me to kill others like myself than I would 'the enemy'. Blind obedience is why wars can even happen, without that it'd be a bunch of old men throwing insults.

I find nationalism quite scary really.

[Tiwaz]

I wouldn't make a good soldier, be more inclined to put a bullet in the guy telling me to kill others like myself than I would 'the enemy'. Blind obedience is why wars can even happen, without that it'd be a bunch of old men throwing insults.

And if the guys on opposite side of the frontline had no such issues? You just shot your officer, traitor, and paved way for your family, home and society to become playthings of someone else.

Congratulations.

I find nationalism quite scary really.

I find pacifism/apathy of people scary. Reality is that there are people out there who do not hesitate to use force to make others bend to their will. Only language they understand is equal or greater force, not flowers and talk about "universal brotherhood of humans".

Gandhi might have managed to pull off pacifist revolution, but it is remembered only because it was so rare to succeed..

[Azog 150]

It's interesting isn't it. I have respect for they went through (minus the killing) but not why they did it. That's more a sense of pity.

I wouldn't make a good soldier, be more inclined to put a bullet in the guy telling me to kill others like myself than I would 'the enemy'. Blind obedience is why wars can even happen, without that it'd be a bunch of old men throwing insults.

I find nationalism quite scary really.

You seem to be under the impression that most soldiers join the Armed Forces out of love for Queen and Country or whatever. This isn't 1914...

[Dr Zoidberg]

If it's too generalized I will narrow it down to one example.

What about ANZAC (Australia-New Zealand) soldeirs in WW1? In Australia they get their own public holiday and everything, because many "died to defend our country", however this makes no sense. They mainly fought against the Ottomans, which were hardly a threat to national security. I will acknowledge that their last ruler was a genocidal madman, however, being dragged into a war by Britain (who shouldn't have joined in the first place), is hardly in the interests of preserving Australia's freedom. Sailing off to kill Muslims is hardly heroicism. Although I will acknowledge the good deeds of 21st century peacekeeping soldiers.

We remember the ANZACs to honour the memory of all those who have fallen in war. The Gallipoli campaign is a perfect example of the futility of war, and yet those men (on all sides) carried out their jobs with honour, bravery and courage.

We don't commemorate the war, we commemorate the men. Also, from an Australian point of view, the campaign is important from a point of national identity because it is the first time we fought as one nation. You have to remember that we were only 13 years old as a nation when we went to war; we still didn't know who we were. Gallipoli was one of those events that helped forge the idea of who we were as a nation.

And just to correct our history, the fact that the Turks were Muslim had absolutely nothing to do why the Gallipoli campaign was conceived. It was meant to end the war sooner by knocking Turkey out, and then reinforcing the Russians on the Eastern Front.

[Tacitursa]

Anybody that risk's there life and spends months/years away from family in very poor living conditions for only £500 per week is insane.

I think most people become soldiers because they enjoy "Blowing stuff up"

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

We remember the ANZACs to honour the memory of all those who have fallen in war. The Gallipoli campaign is a perfect example of the futility of war, and yet those men (on all sides) carried out their jobs with honour, bravery and courage.

We don't commemorate the war, we commemorate the men. Also, from an Australian point of view, the campaign is important from a point of national identity because it is the first time we fought as one nation. You have to remember that we were only 13 years old as a nation when we went to war; we still didn't know who we were. Gallipoli was one of those events that helped forge the idea of who we were as a nation.

And just to correct our history, the fact that the Turks were Muslim had absolutely nothing to do why the Gallipoli campaign was conceived. It was meant to end the war sooner by knocking Turkey out, and then reinforcing the Russians on the Eastern Front.

I used the term "Muslims" rather than Turks because the majority of that nation was not Turkish, so I felt a more generic term would be more sensible, didn't mean it as the East VS West kind of thing.

What do you mean "we didn't know who we were"? Australian culture began well before the Australian Federation. I hardly think adding to the identity of a nation is worth anything, let alone the expenses involved in war. The modern Swiss have a reputation for things like neutrality, science, and high end luxuries, and foreign bank accounts, and these developed just fine by themselves.

[Dr Zoidberg]

What do you mean "we didn't know who we were"? Australian culture began well before the Australian Federation. I hardly think adding to the identity of a nation is worth anything, let alone the expenses involved in war. The modern Swiss have a reputation for things like neutrality, science, and high end luxuries, and foreign bank accounts, and these developed just fine by themselves.

Yes, there was Australian culture before Federation. But Gallipoli is important because, as I said, it was the first time we fought as a nation. It was a unifying event; it wasn't New South Welshman, and Queenslanders, and West Australians fighting, it was Australians. It is considered one of the first events where we contributed as one nation.

Certainly, the national myth of Gallipoli has distorted the pure historical fact of the event of the past 100 years, but nonetheless, we still view it as an important, defining moment in our national history. Even though it is not our national day (which is January 26th), it holds much more importance; much in the same way as Independence Day does in the States.

[nemgod]

If it's too generalized I will narrow it down to one example.

What about ANZAC (Australia-New Zealand) soldeirs in WW1? In Australia they get their own public holiday and everything, because many "died to defend our country", however this makes no sense. They mainly fought against the Ottomans, which were hardly a threat to national security. I will acknowledge that their last ruler was a genocidal madman, however, being dragged into a war by Britain (who shouldn't have joined in the first place), is hardly in the interests of preserving Australia's freedom. Sailing off to kill Muslims is hardly heroicism. Although I will acknowledge the good deeds of 21st century peacekeeping soldiers.

Britain kind of had no choice in the matter. You sign a paper saying you will defend another nation from attack then when it is attacked you do nothing kind of makes any agreement signed with you as worthless.

[thatguy]

Sorry if you guys picked up on this, but I didn't want to read through 10 pages of the thread.

If it's too generalized I will narrow it down to one example.

What about ANZAC (Australia-New Zealand) soldeirs in WW1? In Australia they get their own public holiday and everything, because many "died to defend our country", however this makes no sense. They mainly fought against the Ottomans, which were hardly a threat to national security. I will acknowledge that their last ruler was a genocidal madman, however, being dragged into a war by Britain (who shouldn't have joined in the first place), is hardly in the interests of preserving Australia's freedom. Sailing off to kill Muslims is hardly heroicism. Although I will acknowledge the good deeds of 21st century peacekeeping soldiers.

You foolish, misbegotten man. You clearly have no understanding about what Anzac Day means. Have you EVER been to an Anzac Day ceremony? Seriously...I...I have never been this angry at a member of TWC centre before. Anzac Day isn't a victory parade, it is a dark, sombre occurance, Anzac Day is a national funeral. Anzac Day helps us remember the futility of war, while reminding us of the dark nessesity of soldiers. The Gallipoli campaign is universally recognised, at every Anzac day, as a failed, needless campaign that resulted in the death of thousands of men needlessly. Anzac's are revered because they where ordinary men who where thrown into awful situations, situations of blood and death, and they fought for their lives, and their friends lives. Anzac Day teaches us that war is awful, and tells us that we should always hope for eternal peace. But it reminds us that until then, soldiers are as an important aspect to our society then any other. Soldiers accept a dark responsibility that many people (And certainly YOU) would never accept. The Responsibility of Life and Death, they have to take on the Responsibility of an entire nation, modern soldiers take on this responsbility so that the 20 million people back home don't have to.

Look, I don't mind you not having much care for soldiers, but you better god damn understand what the hell you are talking about before you start knocking Anzac Day. Think again, it is more then just "they get their own public holiday and everything, because many "died to defend our country" ".
Also, Anzac Day celebrates all Anzac Soldiers, INCLUDING the Anzacs who fought and died in WW2, aswell as Australian soldiers who died in conflicts like Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. So, how often did the Anzacs fight the Ottomans in Korea and Vietnam?
OH lol, yeah right, they didn't. Thats like the opposite of "Mainly" right?

[boofhead]

If it's too generalized I will narrow it down to one example.

What about ANZAC (Australia-New Zealand) soldeirs in WW1? In Australia they get their own public holiday and everything, because many "died to defend our country", however this makes no sense. They mainly fought against the Ottomans, which were hardly a threat to national security. I will acknowledge that their last ruler was a genocidal madman, however, being dragged into a war by Britain (who shouldn't have joined in the first place), is hardly in the interests of preserving Australia's freedom. Sailing off to kill Muslims is hardly heroicism. Although I will acknowledge the good deeds of 21st century peacekeeping soldiers.

You have no idea whatsoever about the ANZACs in WW1.

If you think they ''mainly fought against the Ottomans'', you are wrong.

Gallipoli was April - December 1915.
The Anzacs then went to the Western Front from 1916-1918, and fought in a lot of the major battles with great distinction.

Casualties, Gallipoli Campaign: ANZAC, around 11,000 KIA.
Casualties, WW1: ANZAC, 61,000 KIA.

This notion of the ANZACs being a bunch of honkeys from Down Under off on a jaunt to kill some muslims is quite offensive.

There was actually a strategic reason for the Gallipoli campaign (capture Constantinople & open a sea-route to Russia, plus open a new front in an effort to unbalance the stalemate on the Western Front), and Australia at that time being very much a part of the British Commonwealth and very proud of it, it was only natural that they served their King and Country. The Turks sided with the Germans and had German advisors and military assistance. It wasn't about ''killing muslims'' at all.