What's the difference between a soldier, an assassin, and a mercenary? [Archive]

Letum

06-10-09, 08:01 AM

On the face of it:

Soldiers are hired by one organization to which they remain loyal.
Mercenaries are hired to an organization they have no loyalty to other than
financial loyalty.
Assassins are hired by an organization they have no loyalty to, other than
financial loyalty, to kill particular individuals.

However, I suspect you knew that and are looking at a deeper question about
'blood money'.

It is clear that the assassin receives blood money. He only gets paid when he
kills.
The mercenary receives money and is expected to kill, if he needs to, in
order to achieve what ever objectives he has, but it seams to me that this
isn't blood money in the same way as the assassin. The mercenary isn't
usually required to kill if his objectives can be accomplished without him killing.
If the mercenary is hired, for example, for armed protection of the subsim
server he may have to kill any one who tries to destroy it, but if no one
ever presents him with such a serious attack and all he ever has to do is put
out the occasional fire he will still get paid.

The soldier is much the same as the mercenary in that he/she is hired to
complete objectives that may, but don't necessarily, include killing. I think
the major difference is that whilst the mercenary is, almost by definition,
there for the money, the soldier often has a interest in the goals he is trying
to achieve.

For example:

Lets say that Neal Stevens decides he needs protection.

First he hires a mercenary.
Before long Neal is attacked. The mercenary could have dealt with the
situation without killing anyone and still have got paid, but in this case he
decides to kill the attacker. He didn't stop the attacker because he likes Neal;
he just did it so he would get paid at the end of the day.

Next Neal hires a soldier from the forum members at subsim.com.
Before long Neal is attacked. The soldier could have dealt with the
situation without killing anyone and still have got paid, but in this case he
decides to kill the attacker. He didn't stop the attacker because he wouldn't
get paied if he let Neal die; he stopped the attacker because he has a
personal intrest in Neal's survival.

Annoyed at the lack of sucsess, the third attacker hires an assasin.
The assasin attacks Neal. There is no way he can compleate his objectives
without killing Neal. he has nothing personaly against Neal, he is only doing it
for the money.

onelifecrisis

06-10-09, 08:12 AM

I suspect you knew that and are looking at a deeper question about 'blood money'.

Exactly.

While it is true that some soldiers perhaps take the job in the hope that they won't have to kill people, they do still (sometimes) have to kill people. They are sometimes ordered to kill people (ordered by someone who is ultimately a representative of the guy holding the paycheck) and at that point they effectively become assassins even by your definition, no?

And to put another twist on things:

Am I afforded the luxury of making these points by the lives of men with guns who have fought for the rights I now have?

Or am I affored the luxury of the time to even think about it by the lives that have been taken by men with guns in order to make my nation richer at the expense of other nations?

In either case, does it invalidate the point?

This stuff does my head in.

Raptor1

06-10-09, 08:24 AM

A soldier, as I see it, does not work for money, but rather is loyal to the organization (usually his country) for ideological/personal reasons. You might say a mercenary is a hired soldier as an assassin is a hired murderer.

A soldier operates in a war zone, where to achieve his objective he is usually threatened by others, does that not make it more self-defense than assassination? I don't think you can really compare soldiers to assassins...

onelifecrisis

06-10-09, 08:27 AM

Raptor1

06-10-09, 08:55 AM

Ugh, nevermind, I don't know how to put this in words :damn:

Skybird

06-10-09, 08:57 AM

Historically you have to take into account that what separated a mercenary from a soldier is that the latter took the queen'S shilling in that he wears a uniform associated not with private enterprise or just any organisation, but his nation. This was a transition that slowly started Europe at the time the socalled "condottieri" formed many of Italy's mercenary armies of the 14th and 15th century. But even at the time of the 30-years-war, many factions fought with armies consisting of mercenaries, and soldiers not so much loyal to a given flag or nationality or king, but religion. This was one of the reasons why this nightmare lasted for so long. Mercenaries do not desire peace, but war - else they cannot make their income.

That's why I totally oppose the socalled outsourcing of military capacities to private enterprise.

Loyalty of a soldier is usually expected to base on his loyalty to his country, and this national loyalty more or less is attached to love and loyalty to for what this country stands for. This is an idealistic level of approach. A mercenary does not care for this quality at all, and only cares for who is willing to pay his price. A soldier in national service eventually will even - forced or voluntary - fight without being payed.

Low social class, lacking perspectives and lacking chances making people to sign in for a military career for not having other options, is not good. One should not choose a military career if not really desriring that, and the military should not depend on people who had no other choice. It also means (and we have seen this effect after the first two years of the Iraq war) that the scoial and educational balance of people in the military shifts to the worse. It indeed makes the separation between mercenary and soldier fading.

onelifecrisis

06-10-09, 08:58 AM

Yup, that's what I thought, Mikhayl. My uncle was in the (British) army for years, for much the same reasons.

onelifecrisis

06-10-09, 08:59 AM

Mercenaries do not desire peace, but war - else they cannot make their income.

The same could be said (and is said) about military organisations.

Letum

06-10-09, 09:03 AM

It might be useful if we differentiate those who are soldiers by job title, but
may or may not also be mercenary and those who are soldiers by job title and
are not mercenary.

GoldenRivet

06-10-09, 09:29 AM

SOLDIER: a professional, similar to a police officer, who is instilled with principles like Duty, loyalty, patriotism and Honor. He protects individuals of a sovereign nation from the aggression of foreign attack. he is paid to do more than "kill". he also is paid to builds bridges where there are none, he may shores up a swelling river when a town is in danger of flooding, he helps to evacuate or rescue the captive or stranded, he serves his community and helps inspire the principles of patriotism, duty and honor in others.

ASSASSIN: An individual - perhaps a professional - perhaps not; who, for their own personal political gains or the political gains of a group or nation murders a public figure such as a president, king, ambassador, etc. an assassin is not necessarily always facing monetary gain in performing this task.

MERCENARY: an individual or a group of individuals who fights for personal monetary gain only. This person does not genuinely care about the cause of his employer. he does not care whether his employer is a mass murdering genocidal fascist, nor does he care if his employer is a righteous nation seeking to liberate a neighboring nation of a dictator's reign. He does not care whether his employers motives for military action are good or evil; nor does he care who the "enemy" he kills might be... his only motivation is to work for whoever is willing to pay the most money.

onelifecrisis

06-10-09, 09:33 AM

SOLDIER: a professional, similar to a police officer, who is instilled with principles like Duty, loyalty, patriotism and Honor.

:yawn:

GoldenRivet

06-10-09, 09:34 AM

:yawn:

you disagree?

onelifecrisis

06-10-09, 09:37 AM

you disagree?

If "duty" means "follows orders regardless of personal morality (if any)" then I can agree with that part.
The other three are all properties of an individual; they are not magically "instilled" (your word) in someone when they take a certain job.

GoldenRivet

06-10-09, 09:45 AM

If "duty" means "follows orders regardless of personal morality (if any)" then I can agree with that part.
The other three are all properties of an individual; they are not magically "instilled" (your word) in someone when they take a certain job.

coming from a military family, i can tell you that most soldiers do have an enlarged sense of patriotism and honor.

duty has multiple definitions i suppose?

Duty to me and many i know does not mean "follows orders without regard to personal morality" - duty means a sense of obligation or dedication to a cause larger than one's self.

ie - if i were in the peace corps it would have been my "duty" to help people in need and promote intercultural understanding through peaceful initiatives and projects.

as a flight instructor - it is my duty to see that my student receives the best possible training that i am capable of providing.

Skybird

06-10-09, 09:46 AM

The same could be said (and is said) about military organisations.
Not really. A nation uses to support and maintain it'S military even when not being at war. It even may desire to avoid war. However, that decision is a political one, not a military one. The decision to join a war is made by politicians and givenrment - not by the miluitary. But the mercenary company makes that decision itself, by chosing its contracts and offering its services.

I agree however, that this is somewhat the ideal circumstance that probably in no other Western country has been left behind to such a degree like in the US where the mililtary-industrial complex heavily interferes with policy-making to sell it's goodies to the military, which leads to absurd events like systems and quantities being sold that the military does not need, but is ordered by politicians to get nevertheless. War-profiteers certainly are not feeling sad about wars braking out. they are also great in painting threats that are exaggerated or not real at all.

The borderline between ideal utopia and failing reality certainly is no solid one. the American example above we have had in Germany, too, and several times. Most prominent is the old Starfighter-program of which the CSU defence minster ordered more than the Luftwaffe needed, or had the potential to properly maintain. The result was that the damn things did not stop to fall out of the skies. Every third plane in German service, to name it - almost 300.

onelifecrisis

06-10-09, 09:51 AM

Duty to me and many i know does not mean "follows orders without regard to personal morality" - duty means a sense of obligation or dedication to a cause larger than one's self.

And what is that cause?

onelifecrisis

06-10-09, 09:54 AM

Not really. A nation uses to support and maintain it'S military even when not being at war. It even may desire to avoid war. However, that decision is a political one, not a military one. The decision to join a war is made by politicians and givenrment - not by the miluitary. But the mercenary company makes that decision itself, by chosing its contracts and offering its services.

I agree however, that this si somewhat tjhe dieal circumstance that probably on no other Wetsern country has been left behind to such a degree like in the US where the mililtary-industrial complex heavily interferes with policy-making to sell it's goodies to the military, whioch öead to absurd events like systems and quantities being sold that the military does not need, but is ordered by politicians to get nevertheless. War-profiteers certainly are not feeling sad about wars braking out.

The borderline between ideal utopia and failing reality certainly is no solid one.

I agree with all of that. But that's boring, so let's find something to disagree on... ;)

GoldenRivet

06-10-09, 09:59 AM

onelifecrisis

06-10-09, 10:09 AM

the soldier's "cause"... it could be many things.

from saving a small farming community from natural disaster, to seeing through the conclusion of the second world war and the liberation of Eurpope, it could be defending the home shores from foriegn invasion, or entering a dangerous area to evacuate the stranded, sick, or wounded in need of help who cannot help themselves (picture elderly or sick stranded on a volcanic island, or those who are displaced after a hurricaine or tsunami).

Okay, in respect for your not rising to my previous comments I'll temper my response to this bit... but I must say that IMO that is an unrealistically romantic vision of what a soldier really is.

point being... the mission scope of a soldier is multifaceted... soldiers do not always carry rifles, and their mission is not always to kill, it is often to serve, protect and rescue etc.

the Merc and the Assassin are not paid to perform these services, only to kill.

Fair point, and I should think (I certainly hope) that most soldiers prefer the work that doesn't involve killing. But still, for me, I'd have real difficulty signing on the dotted line of a contract which said:

In this job you will, hopefully, spend most of your time helping the helpless and assisting old ladies off the top of volcanoes (and we'll take pictures of you doing it) but every now and then we'll tell you to kill people and you'll have to do it, okay?

I'm not sure I could sign that.

GoldenRivet

06-10-09, 10:18 AM

I'm not sure I could sign that.

soldiering ain't for everybody ;)

but one day if a dictator shows knocking on the door of your nation, killing your civil populous - you will be glad there was someone who did sign that line.

of course that already happened to your country and mine

onelifecrisis

06-10-09, 10:22 AM

soldiering ain't for everybody ;)

but one day if a dictator shows knocking on the door of your nation, killing your civil populous - you will be glad there was someone who did sign that line.

of course that already happened to your country and mine

Indeed. As you Americans might say:
Ain't that a b!tch.

GoldenRivet

06-10-09, 10:27 AM

always is a b*tch when that happens :rotfl:

so... have we established that there is at least a notable difference between a soldier, and the merc/assassin?

hope so!

i have to go to work for the rest of the day!

(where i hope to not kill anyone)

OneToughHerring

06-10-09, 10:37 AM

However, that decision is a political one, not a military one.

How exactly do you differentiate between the two?

onelifecrisis

06-10-09, 10:38 AM

i have to go to work for the rest of the day!

(where i hope to not kill anyone)

Heh, good luck with that last part! In my last job my boss took me to one side one day and asked if there was any possibility that I might show up to work with a gun one day and start randomly killing people. I laughed, but he didn't. Then I realised he was serious. :o

Okay so I was going through a bad period at that time, and I suppose it showed, but still... :o

onelifecrisis

06-10-09, 10:39 AM

How exactly do you differentiate between the two?

Read the rest of the post you quoted. ;)

OneToughHerring

06-10-09, 10:45 AM

Read the rest of the post you quoted. ;)

Well maybe I'd like to hear how he defines it in Germany because we here in Finland have problems with our 'military-industrial complex' meddling with day to day politics etc.

The way I see it there is no clear line between politics and the military in ANY nation. There is always a significant amount of overlapping, much more then is usually openly admitted.

roman2440

06-10-09, 10:58 AM

Most of you guys have it all wrong.

I'll start with the distinction between soldier and merc. The difference comes solely from the origination of the service.

Soldiers are drawn into a service, trained, equipped, housed, and otherwise taken care of. There generally isn't any requirements beyond simple physical requirements made of the people joining up. The government provides training and equips the soldiers in most cases. There is an expectation that to muster a new unit of soldiers requires some lead time to prepare the soldiers and to train.

Mercs are paid to perform their tasks. Generally the paying entity (i.e. the government) doesn't provide a whole lot other than the pay and orders. Sometimes they'll provide transportation, sometimes some housing, but usually the bulk of what it takes to build a fighting unit is put upon those they are hiring. Meaning that the government generally doesn't pay for training, doesn't pay for most of the equipment, etc... In most cases, mercs are 'purchased' ready to go, or very near ready to go - very little prep time/training time is allotted for.

Once a soldier or a merc is brought on board, there is little/no difference between them. They both can do the same tasks. They both can kill, they both can decide to care about an issue or not.

The only other real difference I guess is what happens when a particular member decides to retire - as a soldier generally they are taken care of by the state, whereas as a merc the outfit has to take care of them (if it all).

Assassins on the other hand are different, and could be a subset of either group. Assassins are defined simply as someone whos sole job is to kill other individuals without regard to any other conflict related tasks (such as holding ground). An assassin can be a soldier or a merc - all that depends on is whether they are trained and equipped by the country or the unit/themselves.

GoldenRivet

06-10-09, 10:59 AM

the argument of politics is invalid.

here is why.

the discussion is "what is the difference between the soldier, the merc, and the assassin?"

politics is defined as "the art or science of governing an entity like a nation or a group of people" (imho it is neither art nor science but thats another thread)

all three are affected by politics to some degree, perhaps equally so, politics alone does not determine the role each party plays, it simply justifies the necessity of each party.

assuming each party is equally necessary, what is the difference in the three is the focus of the original question i do believe.

thus i maintain

the soldier serves to protect the citizens of his home nation in multiple ways - through public service, rescue, etc and sometimes yes- even killing.

the assassin kills a public figure for his own personal reasons, or financial motives.

the mercenary kills the enemy of his benefactor, regardless of who the benefactor or the enemy may be.

onelifecrisis

06-10-09, 11:14 AM

Well maybe I'd like to hear how he defines it in Germany because we here in Finland have problems with our 'military-industrial complex' meddling with day to day politics etc.

The way I see it there is no clear line between politics and the military in ANY nation. There is always a significant amount of overlapping, much more then is usually openly admitted.

Yeah, I agree... and I thought that's what Skybird said as well? :06:

OneToughHerring

06-10-09, 11:30 AM

Yeah, I agree... and I thought that's what Skybird said as well? :06:

So he did, sorry I wrote that when on a break, didn't have time to read his original answer throughly.

But anyway, just to underline the ambiguity of the role of the soldier. In the first message you left out conscription/military service which we have. That's yet another thing that furthers the fusing of the military and the 'normal' political apparatus of a nation.

Sailor Steve

06-10-09, 12:01 PM

I have a slightly different take on all of this. But only slightly.

Soldier: Fights for his country, or for what he sees as a cause. These days a lot of kids are signing up because the army offers more money than it used to, but they aren't signing up to fight at all, they're signing up because of the promise of a good job. Sometimes when push comes to shove they refuse to go at all, which causes interesting complications but doesn't mean they're fighting for the money.

Mercenary: Is just what the name means - someone who fights for money. They like to fight, or think they do, and will join any army that will pay them. In the middle ages whole armies rented themselves out to whoever needed them at the moment. At that time it was considered an honorable profession.

Assassin: Is a murderer, not a soldier, and he murders for big bucks. He names his price and if it's paid he does the job. He's not a soldier and he doesn't like to fight, or to take risks. Of course most of the more famous assassins in history didn't do it for money, but for a belief, which means they only did it once, not as a profession.

Letum

06-10-09, 12:35 PM

Would it be fair to say that the kind of soldier many people here are talking
about would still be in the army, even if he wasn't paid, whilst the rest of the
personnel with the job title of "soldier" are some kind of national mercenary?

An interesting question for anyone who gives moral high ground to soldiers
over mercenaries is: Who is worse; the soldier fighting for a bad cause he
believes in or the mercenary fighting for the good cause he is disinterested in?

Sailor Steve

06-10-09, 01:22 PM

I give no high moral ground to the soldier, per se. These days we call the Allied soldiers in the Second World War "The Greatest Generation", because we see their cause as rescuing the free world from tyrannical agressors, but the soldiers fighting in those armies believed in their cause just as much, and since the rank-and-file didn't really have much clue as to what their higher-ups were doing, who's to say they were wrong?

I make a distinction between the terms, but the mercenary is condemned today for what he was once praised. During the American Revolution we complained that the British were hiring Hessians to kill our boys, but we praised people like Lafayette, Pulaski and von Steuben for rallying to our noble cause.

Even the assassin can be looked at in different ways: Assassination is murder, plain and simple, but don't we today praise the men who tried to murder Hitler?

I don't have an answer - I was just responding to the question of what we mean by the different labels.

onelifecrisis

06-10-09, 01:28 PM

Mmm, I should have put more in the OP in order to avoid a semantics debate. I'm well aware what the different words mean, and I thought people would realise that and understand what I was getting at, but I guess not.

Sailor Steve

06-10-09, 01:30 PM

You think too much.

You guess too much.

It seemed like a pretty open-ended question to me. Still, it's prompted some pretty good comments.

Care to elaborate some more?

Foxtrot

06-10-09, 02:19 PM

First goes to pay for his college
The second to pay for his wife's demands.
The thrid goes for his retirement fund.

CaptainHaplo

06-10-09, 08:05 PM

Roman has a very good point on the MECHANICS of the differences between a merc and a soldier.

However, let me throw in a bit more.

A soldier can only be a soldier by choosing to swear an oath of loyalty upon enlistment. That enlistment is defined under contract, and there are certain expectations upon both parties under that contract. *Lets not get into involuntary extensions yet ok....*

A soldier answers to a recognized and officially sanctioned chain of command that rises to the highest levels of his countries government.

A soldier builds a level of esprit de corps within his organizational unit - from squad, platoon, and company level all the way up the chain. He forms a bond with his fellow soldiers, and in the event of combat, psycologically fortifies him or her to stay and fight, to protect his buddy, and to finish the mission out of honor and duty.

A soldier starts pretty low on the totem pole, and through time and effort (under most circumstances) can rise to positions of responsibility.

A Merc however differs greatly from a soldier. A merc holds no loyalty to the employing government or private entity, other than a paycheck. If its more profitable to switch sides, a merc might just do it. In addition, the employer usually holds no loyalty to the mercenary, as they are employed for the added benefit of "deniability".

A merc outfit is given mission guidelines, but the detail planning and logistics are usually self-sourced. Information may be given - but other than intel and guidelines, there is no "military resources" available. There is no army medi-vac, no artillery to cover you, no air support to help out, etc.

Also - the goals of a military operation could be varied. It can be natural disaster response (I personally have deployed for a couple of these when I was in), combat, or just the day to day work that must be accomplished for an army to be ready to go.

A merc group doesn't get paid to make sure the vehicles are working, or to make sure an aircraft is FMC. They get paid to complete specific mission objectives that - by definition - are going to put them into situations where they are likely to be in harms way. Many soldiers serve and never do more than fire a rifle once a year on a range for qualification. A soldier may specialize to be a doctor, a dentist, a mechanic, or any number of things. A merc specializes in combat related skills primarily - as this is what their survival relies on.

Where a soldier usually joins young and is "unblooded", a merc (successful - aka a live one) is experienced in what he needs to do. He has been trained - is almost always ex-military, and has already seen combat.

Historically, merc units fragment easily and are not known to have the highest moral or cohesion. While there are exceptions, the majority of cases demonstrate this.

Mercs in the same group usually have a certain level of respect for their comrades, though it takes a few operations to make certain of the "new guy" unless they have seen combat with that person in other times. A new soldier has done little in life to have such respect. Do not confuse this with esprit de corps however. Again - many mercs will leave a comrade if it insures their own survival. *Not all - but many.

The comparison of either of these two people - to that of an assassin - is a stark contrast. A soldier or merc may be tasked to take out a bridge, recon an area, find and rescue a person, secure a location, etc. If this can be accomplished to minimize conflict - both will take that route to avoid death - given or recieved. The Assassin deals in death - he by definition MUST create a casualty to be successful. The first two will, if given the choice (and assuming their sanity), gladly avoid armed conflict. The assassin by his very profession, must take part in it. However, the wise ones will do all they can to make it as minimal as possible. His role - is death. He cannot avoid it. A good soldier or merc often can avoid combat, and when they cannot - it is not sought out - but is forced upon them.

It should be noted that a merc or soldier could, in certain circumstances - have a mission that requires them to take on an assassin's role - but there is a difference between a specific mission task, and murder. An assassins target is usually an individual - while a soldier or merc usually has a mission that simply can result in combat and death. Also an assassin is much more prevalent in private society than in the dealings between governments.

onelifecrisis

06-10-09, 08:14 PM

Care to elaborate some more?

Wouldn't be any use.

GoldenRivet

06-10-09, 09:27 PM

everything OK OLC?;)

i didnt realize you were into such politically charged conversations / debates

:06:

onelifecrisis

06-10-09, 09:47 PM

everything OK OLC?;)

i didnt realize you were into such politically charged conversations / debates

:06:

I used to be into such debates much more than is probably healthy for a person (some years before I even heard of subsim). These days I don't often feel that there's much point, but still some things will still get me going. Please don't take it personally, but seeing a video that glorifies paid killers (accompanied by an apparently serious post saying "this brought a tear to my eye") is one example. While I'm prepared to admit that soldiers are a necessary evil, I can't see them as anything other than "evil" (assuming that there is such a thing and that my notions of it have some merit). You point out that some soldiers sometimes do good work. That may be the case, but if a murderer/rapist/paedophile does charity work in their spare time does that compensate for their crimes?

To put it another way, let me answer Letum's earlier question:
An interesting question for anyone who gives moral high ground to soldiers over mercenaries is: Who is worse; the soldier fighting for a bad cause he believes in or the mercenary fighting for the good cause he is disinterested in?

Depends on whether the soldier knows his cause is bad, but in general if you're going to judge a person, you should (IMO) judge by intent, not by results.

[as a side note, results are useless anyway because they have consequences which can be considered further results, which have consequences which can be considered further results, on and on until the end of time, and so results could only truly be measured and counted by an omniscient being, and even then only at the end of time, assuming said being does not have perfect foresight, which they don't if quantum physics is right, but that's another debate]

Aramike

06-10-09, 10:21 PM

While I'm prepared to admit that soldiers are a necessary evil, I can't see them as anything other than "evil" (assuming that there is such a thing and that my notions of it have some merit). You point out that some soldiers sometimes do good work. That may be the case, but if a murderer/rapist/paedophile does charity work in their spare time does that compensate for their crimes?This would assume that a soldier's work is criminal, which it is not. Distasteful does not equal criminal, nor does it equate to evil.

Killing is always distasteful, but it certainly is not always evil, inasmuch as there are times where to NOT kill would allow a greater evil to occur. For instance, if a sniper had in his sights a man who was about to detonate a nuclear bomb in a populated area, what would be evil: killing the man, or letting him kill millions? If you try to define both as "evil" you put humanity in an untenable spot of not being able to choose to NOT be evil.

Good is the opposite of evil - not simply the absense of it.

As such, that sniper pulling the trigger would be a "good" act. Similarly, soldiers are often "good" as well. Nut, to be honest, making the generalization that all soldiers are one thing or the other is silly, as soldiering is a profession, occupied by humans from all over the spectrum, just like anything else.

onelifecrisis

06-10-09, 10:44 PM

Killing is always distasteful, but it certainly is not always evil

Certainly?
My word, that's a bold statement.
By the way, just so you know, saying "certainly" does not make something certain.

inasmuch as there are times where to NOT kill would allow a greater evil to occur.

Did you read all of my post? Cos we're onto the whole "judging by results" thing again. Let's take your example to make things clearer, or at least more interesting...

For instance, if a sniper had in his sights a man who was about to detonate a nuclear bomb in a populated area, what would be evil: killing the man, or letting him kill millions?

Okay, lets say you kill the man. Then one of the millions that would have otherwise died grows up into Dr. Evil and detonates some fururistic device that kills a BILLION people. Now, if you could choose to (a) leave history as it is or (b) go back in time and undo the heashot, and save a BILLION lives then what would you do? Note that, for the sake of argument, (c) go back in time and kill both psychos is not an option (even if it were, I could just throw a third psycho into the mix or whatever). This is why intent, not results, is IMO the only basis on which to judge.

Either way, consider this classic thought experiment:

A train is hurtling towards a junction. You are standing by a lever which controls the junction. You cannot stop the train, but you can pull the lever if you want. You can see that if you pull the lever then the train will take the left track, to which one person is tethered, and that person will die. If you don't pull the lever then the train will continue on it's current course - the right track - to which two people are tethered, and they will both die. What do you do?

And now this one (which I've just made up):

You are offered a job in which you will be paid money to operate this lever on a regular basis. You will not get to choose when and whether you pull the lever; your superior officer will pass that order to you and each time he does you will have to do as he says or you'll get fired. But as long as you do as he says you'll get paid. Do you take the job?

That second one is a half-joke. Soldiering makes a mockery of what many would claim to be important matters.

Aramike

06-10-09, 11:11 PM

Certainly?
My word, that's a bold statement.
By the way, just so you know, saying "certainly" does not make something certain.Who said that I thought saying "certainly" made something certain?

What makes something certain is when it is certain. Someone describing that certainty have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is correct.

My statement, as it stands, is correct - and even further reinforced by the FACT that "evil" is subjective.

You'd do best to illustrate why I'm wrong and abandon attempts at empty, glib rhetoric.Did you read all of my post? Cos we're onto the whole "judging by results" thing again. Let's take your example to make things clearer, or at least more interesting...I was responding to a single post, and gave you the courtesy of pointing out which one.

While I have read many of your other posts, if I cared to respond to them I would have, but frankly many of them I found either uninteresting or disingenous.Okay, lets say you kill the man. Then one of the millions that would have otherwise died grows up into Dr. Evil and detonates some fururistic device that kills a BILLION people. Now, if you could choose to (a) leave history as it is or (b) go back in time and undo the heashot, and save a BILLION lives then what would you do? Note that, for the sake of argument, (c) go back in time and kill both psychos is not an option (even if it were, I could just throw a third psycho into the mix or whatever). This is why intent, not results, is IMO the only basis on which to judge. Which brings us to the much more interesting question of whether it is OK to kill someone with the intent of saving a million lives. If you had read my post more intently rather than instantaneously formulating a rebuttal, you'd understand that I agree 100% that it is the intent that matters (which is something I've clearly stated in a recent thread). However, comparing intent to results is only 2/3 of the equation. One must also consider the action.

The intent of the sniper is to save millions of lives. The action of the sniper is to kill someone. A train is hurtling towards a junction. You are standing by a lever which controls the junction. You cannot stop the train, but you can pull the lever if you want. You can see that if you pull the lever then the train will take the left track, to which one person is tethered, and that person will die. If you don't pull the lever then the train will continue on it's current course - the right track - to which two people are tethered, and they will both die. What do you do?

Once you've thought about that, think about this:
You are offered a job in which you will be paid money to operate this lever on a regular basis. You will not get to choose when and whether you pull the lever; your superior officer will pass that order to you and each time he does you will have to do as he says or you'll get fired. But as long as you do as he says you'll get paid. Do you take the job?

That second conundrum is a half-joke. Soldiering makes a mockery of what many would claim to be important matters. This question is highly misleading and is purely intended to make a statement, rather than honestly examine the issue.

The more effective question is, would you take the job if, while you may be forced to operate the lever, your very presence at the lever may keep people from being tethered to the track in the first place.

You know what? I'd take that job, along with a lot of brave individuals. I'd take that job and subject myself to the risk of having to pull the lever, but do so in the hopes that my being at the lever would help prevent it from ever having to be pulled.

And, if neccessary, I'd pull the lever - with myself tethered to the tracks.

onelifecrisis

06-10-09, 11:32 PM

Who said that I thought saying "certainly" made something certain?

What makes something certain is when it is certain. Someone describing that certainty have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is correct.

My statement, as it stands, is correct - and even further reinforced by the FACT that "evil" is subjective.

There you go again. "My statement is correct." Excuse me? Do you mean grammatically correct? Because if not - if you simply mean "I am right" - then maybe I should simply take the stance "no you are not, you are wrong" and we can just take it in turns to repeat those statements until we're bored, eh?

You'd do best to illustrate why I'm wrong and abandon attempts at empty, glib rhetoric.

I already did, but I'm happy to go over it in more detail.
Now, excuse my while I delete the rest of your insults and get to the next relevant part of your post...

This question is highly misleading and is purely intended to make a statement, rather than honestly examine the issue.

Do you mean the first (proper) thought experiment or the second, made-up one? The first is your sniper/bomb scenario distilled into a simple form (not my own - I quoted it from a famous thought experiment) and it's meant to illustrate why killing the bad guy with the sniper rifle is not such a clear-cut case of "good doing" as you seem to think. The problem is that if you pull the lever, or shoot the guy, you're responsible for that death and you're a murderer, but if you don't then you're not responsible for the other two deaths (or million deaths). So which is the moral choice? I couldn't say, but given that the issue is one of personal responsibility I don't think that dodging the issue by handing the decision to someone else would count as moral by either those who would pull the lever or those who wouldn't, which is what my second "made up" example was saying.

As for the rest of your post, please, spare me the propaganda?

Stealhead

06-11-09, 12:34 AM

Solider: is a sworn member of a nation-state military and generaly must obey orders and cant refuse to perform an order or leave his duty(cant quit) in most cases is considered to be the property of said nation state(Roman soliders had brands US Soliders are goverment property) Since they are owned by a nation they can not always perform thier duty for various reasons(public op. tax cost . low manpower)Soliders do recive pay and benifits for thier service but the primary motivation for performing thier duty is protection of ones nation and its intrests and ideals. In some cases Soliders willing joined in others he was required by his nation-states laws and may or may not be fully "into" it in other cases if the Solider was pressed into service he may accept that this is his birthright and a required duty of being a citizen.a Solider may not have to kill to perform his duty though it is likely he will kill those who intend to inflict mortal harm his unit/nation.Though by and large his very nature of being can cause another nation-state to consider if attacking is even worth the risk.( are our Soliders more able than this nation-states Soliders? Can we defeat them to achive our nation-states goals?)

Mercanary: is a solider or better skilled combatant that is hired is not a current but very often is a former Solider is most often employed by a contrator(NGO) that is in turn contracted by a nation-state or NGO to perform a duty that either employing nation-state cant afford to fully employ its military to perform for variuos reasons. Or in the case on an NGO it may lack mercanires itself.Mercs and their contractors offer thier combat/security/protection skills in exchange for payment. A merc may also have an intrest to protect his nation state and if employed by a contractor like Black Water he will have some form of contract but no where nearly as binding as that of a Soliders or may take money from who ever pays if he is not employed by a contractor(free agent).In a western world setting a merc is most often part of an NGO(Black Water) and still has a chain of command and must obey the NGOs rules and regs so they are more or less a military style org. that does not answer directly to a nation state but often is employed buy some part of a nation state(DOD employes Black Water) an NGO merc contractor also has a form of esprit De corps(if you are going to be killing someone and doing it with friends and co-workers might as well enjoy it you could give employee of the month to the merc that gets the longest range kill or the one that kills the largets amount of opponents by using the least amount of ordanace I like the idea of the last one:o) .Then last but not least we have The French Foriegn Legion all memebrs are by tradtion not French(though 40% are and claimed to be French Canadian or Belgain upon enlistment) it is a quasi mercanry force. All mercanaries willingly become employed and leave employment(not the FFL) at will though at times if they leave at will they may be in breach of the employers contract and could suffer a loss in pay or relenquish a bonus.A Mercanry may not have to kill to perform his duty.

Assiassin: Member of a muslim org. whose job it was to kill in a sneaky skillful manner crusaders during the holy crusades/Jihads of medievil times though they later took work form Christians and Muslims. assiassin: any person who kills by suprise attack mostly a prominate person being the victim. the assiassian could be a solider a mercanary a nut case a cia agent anyone. they get paid they may do it for a polaictial reason or for no real reason at all. Both an Assiassian and an assiassian must kill to fully perfrom thier "duty" and in most cases it is prefered he not be taken alive he must either escape clean preferabliy after succesfuly taking out his target or be killed by targets protection or kill himself if this is the only way to avoid capture.

It is not my goal to making any form of political statement in this post I only mention the US and Black Water becasue they are well known examples. Nor am I attempting to express my view on the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan though during my military career I was involved. Nor am i trying to express my views on relgion. Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

NOTE: Solider = A direct combatant that is a memeber of a nation -state military not just a US Army Solider. In this posting.

NOTE: a mercanary NGO is often called a Private Military Contractor rather Geroge Orwellian, this type of merc is consided to be far more trustworthy than a band of merry men mercs.PMCs can often be as capable and at times more capable than a given military uint as PMC employees often are former SPECOPS and therefore far more skilled than the "avergae joe" Solider.

I dont really care what the orginal poster "wanted" but I find many of the replys very dazzeling. I say post what you want this is nice why pretend to be snooty know it all you dont need facny words to say what you want keep it simple stupid.this has turned into several peopl eposting and 2 guys having a hissy fit sissy arguement where they are trying to out high IQ the other guys answer. Did you know that Stalin was born in Gerogia? how the hell did he get all the way across the enitre Atlantic Ocean to get to Russia?

Aramike

06-11-09, 12:39 AM

There you go again. "My statement is correct." Excuse me? Do you mean grammatically correct? Because if not - if you simply mean "I am right" - then maybe I should simply take the stance "no you are not, you are wrong" and we can just take it in turns to repeat those statements until we're bored, eh?That depends on the statement itself, which you seem to be content to bypass.

If one says 2+2=4, and then says that said expression is correct, they would be correct. If one wishes to challenge the statement, then it is up to them to provide why the statement is wrong rather than your absurd assertion that (in equivocation) "simply stating 2+2=4 doesn't make it true".

What makes that statement true is that 2+2=4.

Such is my statement that not all killing is evil. If I can find ANY case in which it is not (made easier by the fact that evil itself is subjective), than my statement is true.

This is not difficult, and that fact that you are attempting to muddle it displays your inability to actually contest the statement itself.I already did, but I'm happy to go over it in more detail.
Now, excuse my while I delete the rest of your insults and get to the next relevant part of your post...One should definitely have thicker skin if one attempts a discussion on a controversial topic.Do you mean the first (proper) thought experiment or the second, made-up one? The first is your sniper/bomb scenario distilled into a simple form (not my own - I quoted it from a famous thought experiment) and it's meant to illustrate why killing the bad guy with the sniper rifle is not such a clear-cut case of "good doing" as you seem to think. The problem is that if you pull the lever, or shoot the guy, you're responsible for that death and you're a murderer, but if you don't then you're not responsible for the other two deaths (or million deaths).It is indeed a case of doing good, if (by your own definition) it is the INTENT and not the result that matters.

Take the sniper case, for instance.

Intent: Save a million lives.
Action: Kill the sniper.
Result: (Immediate) A million lives saves. (Long Term) Undeterminable.

Considering that any and all actions can have long term, evil, unforseeable consequences, it makes little logical sense to include them in any discussion on good and evil. This it part of Chaos Theory, also occassionally known as the Butterfly Effect. Try reversing your own arguments, and you'll see that you've confused the issue so incredibly deeply that only the result you are looking for makes sense to you.As for the rest of your post, please, spare me the propaganda? This is more disingenous rhetoric, and is why your question and arguments should not be taken seriously, as the only ones you care to entertain are the ones which support your prerendered conclusion. This entire thread is nothing more than an attempt to espouse your misguided belief that a noble profession is evil, thinly veiled as a question. As such, you have attempted to disregard any and all answers that don't fit with your preconception, regardless of the validity of the answers themselves.

That is, by nature, intellectually dishonest. And, in this case, extremely transparent.

CastleBravo

06-11-09, 01:08 AM

In todays modern armies soldiers volunteer for their duty.

Assasins, are those who work for hire only. The Max von Sydow character in 'Three days of the Condor', is an example. Bear in mind that that is illegal by US operatives, or we wouldn't have the Gitmo issue.

Mercenaries are NGO's, hired by governments to do tasks which would be considered too risky by the mothers of the regular army. 'The Dogs of War' is a good example.

Like diplomacy they all have their place in the world going back centuries.

OneToughHerring

06-11-09, 01:15 AM

Just a thought on the three categories, to me it seems that soldier and mercenary are almost the one and the same and the two overlap in many ways. Basically it could be said that the merc is often paid more, and that's about the only real difference. I'm talking in very plain terms here.

Whereas the assassin IMO is different from the two. I guess an assassin can be anything from Lee Harvey Oswald or Carlos the Jackal to a local thug hired by the estranged wife to bump off the cheating husband. Quite often the more famous assassins aren't in it for the money but some political or other reasons.

onelifecrisis

06-11-09, 01:21 AM

That depends on the statement itself, which you seem to be content to bypass.

I've read back through our posts and I'm not sure what you think I bypassed. Do you mean this?

This would assume that a soldier's work is criminal, which it is not. Distasteful does not equal criminal, nor does it equate to evil.

If so, I bypassed it because it is itself a bypass; it's an attempt to drag my point into semantics. Simply replace the word "crimes" in my statement with "acts" okay? Then we can move on from semantics. As far as I'm concerned, it makes the same point either way.

If one says 2+2=4, and then says that said expression is correct, they would be correct. If one wishes to challenge the statement, then it is up to them to provide why the statement is wrong rather than your absurd assertion that (in equivocation) "simply stating 2+2=4 doesn't make it true".

What makes that statement true is that 2+2=4.

Such is my statement that not all killing is evil.

You're drawing parallels between "2+2=4" and "not all killing is evil"?

If I can find ANY case in which it is not (made easier by the fact that evil itself is subjective), than my statement is true.

Yes, agreed.

This is not difficult, and that fact that you are attempting to muddle it displays your inability to actually contest the statement itself.One should definitely have thicker skin if one attempts a discussion on a controversial topic.

Hmm, again you're making things personal. Given your tendency to do this, I'm not sure I'm the one without a "thick enough skin" here.

It is indeed a case of doing good, if (by your own definition) it is the INTENT and not the result that matters.

Take the sniper case, for instance.

Intent: Save a million lives.
Action: Kill the sniper.
Result: (Immediate) A million lives saves. (Long Term) Undeterminable.

Considering that any and all actions can have long term, evil, unforseeable consequences, it makes little logical sense to include them in any discussion on good and evil. This it part of Chaos Theory, also occassionally known as the Butterfly Effect. Try reversing your own arguments, and you'll see that you've confused the issue so incredibly deeply that only the result you are looking for makes sense to you.This is more disingenous rhetoric, and is why your question and arguments should not be taken seriously, as the only ones you care to entertain are the ones which support your prerendered conclusion.

Again personal, although this time at least you're going somewhere beyond mere insults so allow me to respond to that bit first. It's interesting (to me) that you think I have a prerendered conclusion. I assure you, I don't. Furthermore, the thing I find most concerning about your posts is that you do. You are certain about these things! Which I find remarkable!

Anyway, to get back on track, and since you say I am confusing the issue please allow me to respond to what you said and hopefully clarifying my point without using metaphors or substitutes or whatever:

Firstly, I'm not certain that killing is ever a good thing, and your assertion that killing to save lives is "good" is not an argument, it's just a statement that you blindly accept as true. Yes, the intent matters, but you have not shown that the intent to save a million lives is justification for taking one. By your own admission you see it as an equivalent to "2+2=4", something that is simply true "by definition". I do not.

Secondly, even if we assume for the sake of argument that killing is sometimes a good thing, there are still moral problems with being a soldier who kills. For a start, the soldier may (and probably will) be required to do killing that is immoral in addition to any "moral killing" that he is required to do, and - perhaps more importantly - he does not know which he will be doing when he agrees to do it. Either way he does not make the decision. Furthermore, I would assert that if a soldier is absolved of the blame of an immoral murder by the fact that he is under orders then by the same token he is stripped of the credit for any "moral killings" that he also performs under orders.

The two "thought experiments" I put forward were meant to illustrate these two points.

That is, by the why, the most sure sign of a weak mind.

More personal attacks? Easy, tiger.

onelifecrisis

06-11-09, 01:30 AM

This is more disingenous rhetoric, and is why your question and arguments should not be taken seriously, as the only ones you care to entertain are the ones which support your prerendered conclusion. This entire thread is nothing more than an attempt to espouse your misguided belief that a noble profession is evil, thinly veiled as a question. As such, you have attempted to disregard any and all answers that don't fit with your preconception, regardless of the validity of the answers themselves.

That is, by nature, intellectually dishonest. And, in this case, extremely transparent.

I didn't realise I'd "thinly veiled" anything. It wasn't until people started posting dictionary definitions that I realised that I hadn't made it clear what I was trying to discuss. See, for example, my exchanges with Steve and Golden Rivet in this thread. I think you'll find I'm not "thinly veiling" anything, in fact I suggested in response to Steve's post that maybe I should have worded the OP more clearly so as to get more genuine discussion and less dictionary definitions. You have understood perfectly what it is I want to discuss, as have several others, although you seem to have taken it very personally... but then this is a rather touchy subject as you said, so that's to be expected.

GoldenRivet

06-11-09, 01:32 AM

Killing is always distasteful, but it certainly is not always evil

correct... if a rapist intrudes into my home and attempts to harm my family, should i not shoot him dead simply because killing him would be distasteful?

and OLC... to what video are you referring?

onelifecrisis

06-11-09, 01:35 AM

The one you posted the crying thread. It was the straw that broke the camels back, so to speak.

GoldenRivet

06-11-09, 01:40 AM

onelifecrisis

06-11-09, 01:47 AM

i came to the realization of which video you were speaking of almost immediately after i posted.

i certainly did not post that video of solders images to the song "proud to be an American" to stir anyone to anger, disbelief or disgust. :timeout:

i'll give you a quote

"Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a
human being."
- Kahlil Gibran

that idea which i feel is represented in the song and the slideshow- is what moves me to tears sir. ;)

Umm...
Ooops? :oops:
Thanks for clarifying. But, as I said, it was the straw that broke the camels back (even if it was a misunderstood straw [that's one seriously broken metaphor]) so I'm glad I started this discussion. :up:

GoldenRivet

06-11-09, 01:49 AM

as am i, like i said - i didnt intend to upset anyone, least of all you. :salute:

im glad you started the discussion as well, it was very... stimulating. :yeah:

Aramike

06-11-09, 02:21 AM

correct... if a rapist intrudes into my home and attempts to harm my family, should i not shoot him dead simply because killing him would be distasteful?

and OLC... to what video are you referring?That's specifically my point - it stinks to have to take a human life, but the consequences of not doing so are worse.

GoldenRivet

06-11-09, 02:25 AM

That's specifically my point - it stinks to have to take a human life, but the consequences of not doing so are worse.

exactly :up:

CastleBravo

06-11-09, 02:31 AM

That's specifically my point - it stinks to have to take a human life, but the consequences of not doing so are worse.

It takes many hours to remove the built in reluctance to take human life, unless you are an abortion doctor sworn to uphold the hypocratic oath.
Part of basic training is about breaking down the natural instinct which is built into everyone reguarding killing other human beings.

onelifecrisis

06-11-09, 02:35 AM

@Aramike?

Now who's confusing/avoiding the issue?

Secondly, even if we assume for the sake of argument that killing is sometimes a good thing, there are still moral problems with being a soldier who kills. For a start, the soldier may (and probably will) be required to do killing that is immoral in addition to any "moral killing" that he is required to do, and - perhaps more importantly - he does not know which he will be doing when he agrees to do it.

Response?

It takes many hours to remove the built in reluctance to take human life, unless you are an abortion doctor sworn to uphold the hypocratic oath.
Part of basic training is about breaking down the natural instinct which is built into everyone reguarding killing other human beings.

Still think it's as simple as 2+2=4?

Aramike

06-11-09, 03:03 AM

I've read back through our posts and I'm not sure what you think I bypassed. Do you mean this?I meant, SPECIFICALLY, the point about how not all killing is evil.If so, I bypassed it because it is itself a bypass; it's an attempt to drag my point into semantics. Simply replace the word "crimes" in my statement with "acts" okay? Then we can move on from semantics. As far as I'm concerned, it makes the same point either way.Your original question is semantics to begin with. The difference between a mercenary and a soldier can easily be found in the dictionary, of all places. But that is outside the scope of our particular discussion.You're drawing parallels between "2+2=4" and "not all killing is evil"?I'm drawing a parallel between two factual statements. Hmm, again you're making things personal. Given your tendency to do this, I'm not sure I'm the one without a "thick enough skin" here.None of that was personal, and the fact that you take it as such demonstrates a thin skin, as it were.

Making an observation and a deduction based upon someone's communications is not denigrating the discussion into some kind of personal attack. If you attempt to muddle the argument and are called on it, that's not personal - that's merely a statement of observation.Again personal, although this time at least you're going somewhere beyond mere insults so allow me to respond to that bit first. It's interesting (to me) that you think I have a prerendered conclusion. I assure you, I don't.Despite your repeated, baseless claims, I have not attempted to insult you once. Perhaps you may take your arguments being called disingenous as an insult, but surely that holds no more credibility than how insulting your assertion that soldiers are evil must be.

Hence, the comment regarding thin skin.

Furthermore, you absolutely do have a prerendered conclusion, despite your protests to the contrary. This is evidenced by your outright dismissal of any arguments pertaining to "duty" and "honor" as a motivation. Someone truly seeking an unbiased answer would strive to take into account all possible motivations.Furthermore, the thing I find most concerning about your posts is that you do.Unlike you, I am not seeking a dilineation to something I already clearly understand. As such, I believe that I have an educated, prerendered conclusion.

To assume that others haven't solved a problem that we ourselves are currently mulling is the height of arrogance.

So, unlike you, I'll admit that I have a prerendered conclusion. Furthermore, I contend that I can support said conclusions with facts and reasoning. Finally, I do not believe that having come to a conclusion is at all something to be frowned upon.You are certain about these things! Which I find remarkable!You should read more closely and attempt to understand the contents of an argument prior to rushing to formulate a response (as is evidenced by the fact that, a mere minutes after I wrote the previous post, I edited something out which still manages to appear in your rebuttal).

I am certain about what I specifically say I am certain about. I am certain that, due to the subjective nature of "evil", not all killing is evil. To prove that statement wrong, you would have to demonstrate that evil is absolute. Furthermore, you would ALSO have to demonstrate that ALL acts of killing are evil acts.

Considering that I can easily cite many, many instances where *I* don't find killing to be evil (as evil is subjective), my statement is certain.

Read back to your original rebuttal of my original post. Rather than making a snide and ridiculous (and insulting) comment about how my saying something is certain doesn't make it certain, why don't you tell me how I'm wrong?

You can't. No one can, due to the subjective nature of "evil". That is why I'm certain.

Furthermore, attempt to refrain from applying my one conditional statement of certainty to the rest of my arguments, despite myself not doing so.Firstly, I'm not certain that killing is ever a good thing, and your assertion that killing to save lives is "good" is not an argument, it's just a statement that you blindly accept as true.This is silly rhetoric. Do you know what an argument is (hint, hint: it's a course of reasoning, in this context)?

Secondly, how do you justify the statement that I "blindly" believe it to be true, considering that I have posted no parameters regarding what leads me to have that belief?

Thirdy, one can say that ANY argument is "just a statement" that someone accepts is true. That does nothing to qualify or disqualify the argument itself. Yes, the intent matters, but you have not shown that the intent to save a million lives is justification for taking one.No, I haven't shown to YOUR SATISFACTION that it is justified. However, your satisfaction is irrelevent to the real world. To the satisfaction of the vast majority of people (want to do a poll?), the killing of one person to save the million lives that SAID PERSON HIMSELF THREATENS is justifiable.By your own admission you see it as an equivalent to "2+2=4", something that is simply true "by definition". I do not.If you're going to dispute my claim, it helps to actually show why the claim is wrong. So far, we're in an endless cycle of you criticizing arguments while positing none of your own.Secondly, even if we assume for the sake of argument that killing is sometimes a good thing, there are still moral problems with being a soldier who kills. For a start, the soldier may (and probably will) be required to do killing that is immoral in addition to any "moral killing" that he is required to do, and - perhaps more importantly - he does not know which he will be doing when he agrees to do it.First of all, please cite reasons you believe a soldier will have to "probably" kill in the first place. The vast majority of soldiers never see combat and, as such, your argument is proven wrong. Secondly, as morality is subjective, prior to your making claims as to soldiers immorally killing, morality itself must be defined. Either way he does not make the decision.He makes an informed decision to relegate his moral authority to someone else, who has been decided to be better qualified to see the larger picture, as it were. There is no guarantee that the senior will be always morally correct, but that is a human flaw - not just a soldier's.Furthermore, I would assert that if a soldier is absolved of the blame of an immoral murder by the fact that he is under orders then by the same token he is stripped of the credit for any "moral killings" that he also performs under orders.What is your reasoning for this, or is it just a "statement that you blindly accept to be true"?More personal attacks? Easy, tiger. It is funny how this is a response to something I edited out moments after posting. It serves to demonstrate that you were far more eager to respond than to actually read and comprehend an alternative point. This also shows that your position has been predetermined.

Aramike

06-11-09, 03:10 AM

@Aramike?

Now who's confusing/avoiding the issue?

Response?

Still think it's as simple as 2+2=4?First, what does this have to do with me?

Second, I never said the issue was as simple as 2+2=4. That's something you no doubt derived from being too busy responding to actually read and comprehend was I was saying.

The 2+2=4 was CLEARLY in reference to a single statement I made, and the nature of "certainty". I cannot fathom a good reason why you'd continually take it out of its so clearly obvious context, so I won't bother a guess.

Also, I'd suggest that you slow down a bit, take a deep breath, and try to figure out what is being written, but it's probably hopeless to do so as you're likely already responding the very suggestion.

Aramike

06-11-09, 03:30 AM

It takes many hours to remove the built in reluctance to take human life, unless you are an abortion doctor sworn to uphold the hypocratic oath.
Part of basic training is about breaking down the natural instinct which is built into everyone reguarding killing other human beings.Killing has been around a lot longer than basic training. Personally I do not believe that there is a GENERALIZED natural instinct to not take a human life - instincts are proactive, and not taking a life is the default position). I believe that there IS a natural instinct to kill if threatened severly enough, however (this is supported by modern psychology).

Having been through basic training myself, I believe that there is very little in the way of breaking down any humanistic instincts. At least, not any more than there was on my highschool football team...

onelifecrisis

06-11-09, 03:31 AM

CastleBravo

06-11-09, 03:43 AM

Killing has been around a lot longer than basic training. Personally I do not believe that there is a GENERALIZED natural instinct to not take a human life - instincts are proactive, and not taking a life is the default position). I believe that there IS a natural instinct to kill if threatened severly enough, however (this is supported by modern psychology).

Having been through basic training myself, I believe that there is very little in the way of breaking down any humanistic instincts. At least, not any more than there was on my highschool football team...

Some form of basic training has always been around both ancient and modern. The Spartans started vey young. The reason was to remove the base instinct not to take human life. Airforce basic isn't the same as basic for up close killers. You can always tell who the AF bus drivers are.

Aramike

06-11-09, 03:59 AM

Ugh...

I see you like to split one discussion into as many smaller discussions as possible. If I avoid answering every single one of your statements you accuse me of avoiding issues, but if I were to answer every single point you make then those points would get split into more points and more points and we'd end up debating seventy things instead of one. It would be one big mess of a discussion, and given your style of debate I suspect you're very familiar with the sort of mess I'm talking about.

Are you interested in this topic, or just looking for a sparring partner? I would be quite happy to reply to most of your ever-growing list of sub-points and sub-topics in PM, and in this thread reply only to the few sentences in your post that I consider to be relevant to the discussion, but would that suit you or not?Heh, this seems to be a cop-out.

Frankly, I'd prefer you respond to the FACT that you used my statement of certainty to mean that everything I said was qualified similarly. This shows that, no, I don't split things into sub-topics. Rather, it is you who are doing so. My points remain within their original contexts.

Honestly, here's where the problem grew. I stated that certainly not all killing can be considered evil. You snidely replied that just because I say something is certain, that doesn't make it so. I come back with that the statement is certain and THAT is what makes it certain, and I further demonstrate why.

And yet, you keep trying to use that statement against my arguments despite the fact that it makes no sense to do so, and is grossly out of context...

What's happened here is that I made an argument, you've spent ten thousand words in a vain attempt to tell me I'm wrong, and have not once displayed parameters to support that. Further, you've attempted to dodge the fact that you have a prerendered conclusion regarding this topic, despite your ABSOLUTE dismissal of valid arguments. You've posited that killing, and being a soldier is "evil" and "immoral" dodging the fact that, in order to do so, "evil" and "morality" must be clearly defined.

You've even gone so far as to explain that saving a million lives might be "evil" because one of those lives may, in the future, result in billions dead. By that bizarre claim, childbirth is evil. Education is evil. Etc. In this track, "evil" itself is so muddled that the point becomes moot, and we'd be talking about nothing.

I understand your arguments and your question. However, I believe you are being dishonest in your search for answers, as you've out-of-hand dismissed those that would challenge your notions. Further, I believe that you are misguided, and, quite frankly, outright DEPRAVED to believe that killing someone with their hand on the button of a nuclear weapon poised to kill millions is evil. It is absolutely sickening to me how one's emotional self-satisfaction is more important than millions of human lives.

My morality is clear. Yours is not so clear, and you are attempting to frame your arguments within your personal morality, making them neither right or wrong - in theory.

However, in the real world, semantical theory is of little use, thank heavens.

Aramike

06-11-09, 04:01 AM

Some form of basic training has always been around both ancient and modern. The Spartans started vey young. The reason was to remove the base instinct not to take human life. Airforce basic isn't the same as basic for up close killers. You can always tell who the AF bus drivers are.I suppose that it true, and I have erred in overlooking your point.

However, the remainder of my points regarding human nature still stand.

CastleBravo

06-11-09, 04:21 AM

I suppose that it true, and I have erred in overlooking your point.

However, the remainder of my points regarding human nature still stand.

I for one am pleased that taking life is not the default position. Please do not take that to mean that taking a life to save multiple lives, or in the case of rape, arson etc. is beyond my comprehension, nor the that the 'castle doctrine' is out of bounds.

My previous statements were only contributed to place emphasis and more emphasis on what many do not consider when using deadly physical force.

onelifecrisis

06-11-09, 04:22 AM

Hookay, so far I'm disingenous, glib, arrogant, dishonest, thin skinned, depraved, snide... shall I go on? But no, you're not getting personal!

I'm not above petty fights and I'll bite sooner or later if this goes on. Hell, this very post is here (rather than in PM) more to serve my ego than anything else. This could have been PM'd, but then I'd lose face, right? I know you know what I'm saying. My offer to take this to PM is not a cop-out, it's an attempt to save this thread from our egos without losing out on your opinions on the topic which I actually do want to hear, as opposed to your opinions on me which I don't.

It's 22 hours since I slept (I've been at the damn Red Bull again, but it's wearing off) but I'll PM you tomorrow unless you say not to.

G'night.

Aramike

06-11-09, 04:33 AM

Hookay, so far I'm disingenous, glib, arrogant, dishonest, thin skinned, depraved, snide... shall I go on? But no, you're not getting personal!When you put it like that...

Except, considering I'm the one that said those things, and DID NOT put it like that, it changes things. "Context" can be very important.

Besides, where the hell do you get off? You can claim that soldiers are evil with impunity, but as soon as someone claims that a person is depraved who believes that it is wrong to kill someone who's going to kill millions of people, now THEY are making it personal?

HUH?I'm not above petty fights and I'll bite sooner or later if this goes on. Hell, this very post is here (rather than in PM) more to serve my ego than anything else. This could have been PM'd, but then I'd lose face, right? I know you know what I'm saying. My offer to take this to PM is not a cop-out, it's an attempt to save this thread from our egos without losing out on your opinions on the topic which I actually do want to hear, as opposed to your opinions on me which I don't.Stop whining about "opinions on me".

Just so you know, I served. As have many people here. You're opinion that soldiers are evil are opinions on US. If you can't handle it the other way, then you should have kept quiet.It's 22 hours since I slept (I've been at the damn Red Bull again, but it's wearing off) but I'll PM you tomorrow unless you say not to.Go nuts, but understand - what's good for the goose is good for the gander.G'night.Ditto.

CastleBravo

06-11-09, 05:01 AM

Just rambling but then again from the start I think it's healthy to make the difference between a soldier within the homeland borders and away.

I could go on and on and on with sadly funny (home) or downright ugly (abroad) personnal stories and friend's stories from "duty" but I think it can be summed by a couple numbers. In the french army there's at most 0.7 applicant for 1 job. The job pays 200 euros more than any other "non qualified" job, and you're sure to get it. When I left the army I had to post over 50 resumés to finally get a lousy job paying 900€ compared to the 1150 + benefits I was making in the army. Some people on this forum will want to use that to take a shot at the french as usual but before doing so take a look at the stats for your own army :)

So with that mind I'm never surprised when I hear in the news that this guy was charged with rape, this one was seen on a blog photo wearing nazi garment, this one accidentally discharged his firearm on a comrade etc etc.

I think it's safe to say that if an army has to resort to advertising and roaming streets to find recruits, then you can be sure things are going to be ugly especially when these people are deployed abroad. There is a huge difference between the actual stuff and the romantic vision of strong men placing duty above and giving up their life to "serve and protect".

Basically I agree with OLC's statement that soldiers are a necessary evil but an evil nonetheless.

Well at least it isn't forced conscription.

Dowly

06-11-09, 06:59 AM

Wait... how the hell did you guys turn a topic like this to a debate and personal attacks??? :o

Soldier = On duty to defend/attack for one's country. Either volunteer or "forced" to (depends of the country).
Mercenary = Volunteer, either works for the money or just likes what he/she does.
Assassin = This would have tons of meanings. You kill someone publicly known or in high status = you are called an assassin. But I think you are looking for a more traditional explanation? Assassin as in hitman (no, not the game)? Well, a person who kills ppl for money and/or he/she is ordered to.

I'm sorry if I've missed something, but wouldnt that kinda be it? How in-depth story you want about the differences? :doh:

UnderseaLcpl

06-11-09, 10:08 AM

Wolfehunter

06-11-09, 10:32 AM

ASSASSIN: An individual - perhaps a professional - perhaps not; who, for their own personal political gains or the political gains of a group or nation murders a public figure such as a president, king, ambassador, etc. an assassin is not necessarily always facing monetary gain in performing this task.

Some others feed off the suffering and pain when the target is being removed.

GoldenRivet

06-11-09, 11:29 AM

you have a hypothetical situation:

there is a group of 5 evil men who have killed a hundred people.

their threat is that they will kill 500 more by days end.

you have a group of soldiers at your disposal.

which is more ethical?

1. kill the 5 men, saving 500 lives in the process.

OR

2. let the 5 men live, as killing is ugly and you wish to not resort to it, and the 500 innocent people end up killed in the process.

like i have said before, my family has had members in virtually every branch of the armed services.

to my knowledge, none of them ever killed anyone given the exception of my grandfather and i dont know for a fact whether or not he ever fired a shot in the war.

though it is possible that he never killed anyone when he went ashore on Omaha Beach, and was subsequently involved in every major European campaign between the beach and Berlin - it is a highly unlikely scenario that he didn't kill at least one person.

Understandably - I know my grandfather well - he was a soldier, a church deacon until he died, loving and devoted husband and father, well known in his community... i know not one single person that would call him "evil"... i dont know anyone who knows him who would even THINK of calling him evil.

the fact remains, regardless of your opinion OLC we dont live in a cut and dry, straight laced, black and white world.

people kill each other, people rape, steal, murder, lie... they loiter, spit on the sidewalk, urinate in public, smack their gum, scuff their feet, chew their food with their mouths open, drive slow in the fast lane, and put their elbows on the table.

it sucks.

but in the course of the human experience we still have a LONG way to go before there are no more murders, and no more need for soldiers.

in fact if you want my opinion - we wont ever achieve this ideal.

so my original opinion stands.

Mercs and Assassins are more or less paid murderers

SOLDIERS - they are paid to defend - selflessly laying their lives down in conflict, so that mine may go onward in peace.

Letum

06-11-09, 12:02 PM

SOLDIERS - they are paid to defend - selflessly laying their lives down in conflict, so that mine may go onward in peace.

What a load of tosh!

If soldiers only fought for peace there would never be war, if they where all
selfless there would never be looting.

They are humans.

onelifecrisis

06-11-09, 12:18 PM

The current war in Iraq has so far resulted in somewhere between ~50,000 and ~1,300,000 deaths, depending what source you choose to believe. Who do you suppose killed all those people?

GoldenRivet

06-11-09, 12:29 PM

The current war in Iraq has so far resulted in somewhere between ~50,000 and ~1,300,000 deaths, depending what source you choose to believe. Who do you suppose killed all those people?

insurgents, car bombers, IED builders, suicide bombers, terrorists, and soldiers, air force pilots, etc.

a majority of them were insurgents, extremists or terrorists who seek to do harm without regard to whether or not there is a war on.

other KIA were innocent civilians who were killed by crossfire, suicide bombs, car bombs IEDs etc.

nobody says its pretty.

but if i had to decide on car bombs and IEDs and suicide bombs going off at the local mall, or at the Baghdad war zone deli - i'll pick the latter

GoldenRivet

06-11-09, 12:31 PM

What a load of tosh!

If soldiers only fought for peace there would never be war, if they where all
selfless there would never be looting.

They are humans.

who is fighting for peace? :06:

fighting for peace is like fu*king for virginity.

the fact of the matter is that soldiers dont fight for peace, they fight so that the civilian population may be defended from those who would seek to do harm to them.

perhaps that is not the purpose of soldiers in the UK or in France.

but it is the purpose of American Soldiers.

Aramike

06-11-09, 12:44 PM

What a load of tosh!

If soldiers only fought for peace there would never be war, if they where all
selfless there would never be looting.

They are humans.Actually, I would say that, especially in the modern era, soldiers do only fight for peace. That doesn't preclude war, as they are fighting for a peace of THEIR design and THEIR conditions.

Letum

06-11-09, 12:46 PM

SOLDIERS [..] are paid to defend [..] so that mine may go onward in peace.
[..]soldiers dont fight for peace

You have lost me...

The idea that American soldiers only ever fight to defend the civilian
population is also nonsense. America has gone to war several times for a
multitude of reasons other than defense of the civilian population. From
Spanish Cuba to 'Nam.

Letum

06-11-09, 12:49 PM

Actually, I would say that, especially in the modern era, soldiers do only fight for peace. That doesn't preclude war, as they are fighting for a peace of THEIR design and THEIR conditions.

To then end that all participants in a war want a peace after their victory
and domination; this is true. However, by that measure even Germany was
fighting for peace in the 40's.

Sailor Steve

06-11-09, 12:51 PM

I think that the whole topic is more about the moral difference between the three at this point, Dowly.

Personally, I think they're making the whole thing much more complicated than it really is, but for the record;

Soldier= state combatant
Mercenary= professional private combatant
Assassin= state or private professional murderer
Simple, direct and succinct as usual, James.

I'm finding the discussion on the morality of the common soldier fascinating. Most people from countries which constitued the Allied side of World War Two will tell you that their side fought to save the world from tyranny, and that they did a great thing. And their arguments have merit. Others will say that all killing is wrong, and their arguments have merit as well.

My experience was in Vietnam, or rather off the the coast of that lovely country. I joined the navy because I thought I might get drafted into the army, and I'll be honest and simple - I didn't want to get shot at. The navy made me a radioman, so that even though my destroyer was on the gun line, giving fire support to the marines, doing escort duty for the aircraft carriers and lifeguard duty for the air force, I never did get shot at. I also never pulled any triggers, but I did recieve the reports from the marines we covered, including body counts after each engagement. I didn't like it, and was in fact quite disturbed by my own involvement in the deaths of many dozens of people who had never done anything to me.

One of the things that bothered me the most was the Concientious Objector status. People were allowed a deferment if they could prove a prior religious or moral objection to war in general. What bothered me was that deferments were not allowed for objecting to that war in particular. I came to believe that we were wrong to be there, and ended up obtaining an early release, still honorable in nature.

Is killing wrong? Definitely. Would I kill to protect my family or friends? I'd like to say "Without a second thought", but since I've never had to I can't say that for sure. Would I kill to protect an innocent stranger? I don't know.

Some people join the military to get the offered education. Some join because they see it as a duty. Some join because they want to learn the discipline of boot camp. Some join because they like the idea of a regimented life, where freedom is limited but all needs are taken care of. And some join hoping the opportunity will arise for them to be sanctioned to kill, because they want to give it a try. Much is said of honor and duty, but those who have been there end up talking about how horrible it is, when they talk about it at all.

I don't believe wars happen because "Old men send young men off to fight and die". I believe wars happen because young men feel a need to prove themselves. John Lennon once asked "What if they gave a war and nobody came?" He also suggested that the answer might be an international law ordering all soldiers to drop their trousers before pulling the trigger. Comedy trumps aggression almost every time.

Buffy Sainte-Marie's song said it as well as anything:
http://www.creative-native.com/lyrics/univelyr.htm

GoldenRivet

06-11-09, 12:57 PM

You have lost me...

The idea that American soldiers only ever fight to defend the civilian
population is also nonsense. America has gone to war several times for a
multitude of reasons other than defense of the civilian population. From
Spanish Cuba to 'Nam.

im not saying every war - or any war is justified.

however i maintain that it is more honorable to be a soldier, than to be a merc or assassin. I dont know how UKers feel about their service men and women... personally i am proud as hell of mine.

@steve

very well said.

but as long as mankind governs the earth - war will be.

OneToughHerring

06-11-09, 01:02 PM

a highly unlikely scenario that he didn't kill at least one person.

Oh I don't know, a lot of people actually 'become pacifists' when they are in position to kill someone in a war. I saw this study once, it can probably be found on the net, that said that during WW 2 a lot of people who had the chance to pull the trigger on someone didn't for whatever reasons. If I remember correctly it was conducted among US soldiers. This is something that military training has subsequently found problematic, that they in a way have to toughen people up so they will be able to kill without much hesitation.

Maybe that's a comment in favour of human nature instead of thinking that everyone is inherently evil etc.

Aramike

06-11-09, 01:03 PM

To then end that all participants in a war want a peace after their victory
and domination; this is true. However, by that measure even Germany was
fighting for peace in the 40's.Indeed they were. However, their peace was unacceptable to much of the rest of the world, who fought the Nazis for a different kind of peace.

onelifecrisis

06-11-09, 01:39 PM

I dont know how UKers feel about their service men and women... personally i am proud as hell of mine.

I can only speak for myself of course, but I would not say I'm proud of ours. I sometimes read about the of deaths of UK "soldiers" (catch-all term) in Iraq and when I do I can't say I feel even remorse, let alone pride. Even our involvement in WW2 - a war that's relatively easy to try and justify from an Allied perspective - was a direct result of the rhetoric of a warmongering Prime Minister who's true motives are unknown to me, but which I do not assume to be righteous.

Sailor Steve

06-11-09, 01:45 PM

I have to disagree. World War Two may be attributed to actions taken by the victors of the previous war, but it is directly attributable to the actions of a group of men (and one individual) bent on conquering as much of the victors' territory as possible. And your PM at the time wasn't a warmonger - much to the contrary he was an appeaser, willing to give anything and everything to the agressors in the name of "Peace in our time".

onelifecrisis

06-11-09, 01:46 PM

insurgents, car bombers, IED builders, suicide bombers, terrorists, and soldiers, air force pilots, etc.

a majority of them were insurgents, extremists or terrorists who seek to do harm without regard to whether or not there is a war on.

other KIA were innocent civilians who were killed by crossfire, suicide bombs, car bombs IEDs etc.

nobody says its pretty.

but if i had to decide on car bombs and IEDs and suicide bombs going off at the local mall, or at the Baghdad war zone deli - i'll pick the latter

I'm not buying it, sorry. Maybe some died that way, maybe many, but by their own records the US military forces killed 20,000 insurgents after Saddam Hussein (according to Wikipedia) and combat death figures from other sources are of course much higher.

onelifecrisis

06-11-09, 01:49 PM

I have to disagree. World War Two may be attributed to actions taken by the victors of the previous war, but it is directly attributable to the actions of a group of men (and one individual) bent on conquering as much of the victors' territory as possible.

[edited]
I admit that I oversimplified with the words "direct result".

Aramike

06-11-09, 02:21 PM

I can only speak for myself of course, but I would not say I'm proud of ours. I sometimes read about the of deaths of UK "soldiers" (catch-all term) in Iraq and when I do I can't say I feel even remorse, let alone pride. Even our involvement in WW2 - a war that's relatively easy to try and justify from an Allied perspective - was a direct result of the rhetoric of a warmongering Prime Minister who's true motives are unknown to me, but which I do not assume to be righteous.So, if you as a civilian don't feel remorse for the loss of your soldiers, why should soldiers feel remorse for the loss of civilians? What if soldiers just cared about the civilians that do care for their sacrifice?

onelifecrisis

06-11-09, 04:23 PM

So, if you as a civilian don't feel remorse for the loss of your soldiers, why should soldiers feel remorse for the loss of civilians? What if soldiers just cared about the civilians that do care for their sacrifice?

Saying that I don't feel remorse for someone's death is not the same as saying I'd kill them myself, nor that it would be OK for me to do so.

Edit:
I looked up "remorse" and it seems it was a bad choice of word on my part (sort of like "guilt" whereas what I meant was "grief" or "sadness").

Wolfehunter

06-11-09, 04:43 PM

What a load of tosh!

If soldiers only fought for peace there would never be war, if they where all
selfless there would never be looting.

They are humans.Exactly man. :03:

CaptainHaplo

06-11-09, 07:03 PM

Onelife - having read this entire posting - you have repeatedly commented in ways that make it obvious that you do not support those who choose to commit their life - or a portion thereof - to the military.

You say you feel no grief over the death of a fellow human who is out there defending what your GOVERNMENT says needs to be defended. In many cases - that same human was willing to give up his life so that you may enjoy your own as you do today.

You may not agree with the conflict itself - for example the current actions in the middle east. That a reasonable stand. While I would disagree - thats a matter for another discussion. But to disagree with the POLITICAL decisions to deploy troops is one thing - to feel no sadness at the loss of the life of a person who risked their life in an attempt to keep your safe - whether misguided or not - is to fail to recognize what is one of the most honorable things in this existence - the giving of one's own life for another.

I get the fact you disagree with the current state of military action. Thats your right. But it wasn't the troops who woke up one day and said, hey - lets go invade wherever for fun. They made decisions to put their trust in their government and military heirarchy - joined and took an oath to obey that structure. They knew going in that it might mean they end up somewhere they disagreed with. The possibility is there - at any time - in peace or war.

They don't control the theatre they deploy to, if they did I would have personally been the first man ashore in the peaceful invasion of the Hawiian Islands of 1992! They go in knowing that they might have to fight an invader who wants to enslave you and those you hold dear. They know they might have to risk their life - and lose it - protecting your interests, society and way of life.

Does their loss of life mean less because they are somewhere you personally don't think they should be? Apparently so. Yet without them making that sacrifice - those who are their terrorizing - would be where you are - terrorizing you. After all - they have stated - and proven - they want to strike where their enemies call "home" - they have made it clear they want to rule the world under an islamic extremist fist.

If your ok with that - then go move to Iran - you would get it. If you love the fact your allowed to go to places like this and discuss things such as this - then realize that those you have no grief over - are the very ones keeping you in touch with that right to be here and do this. Without them- and others like them throughout history - you would have no such ability.

Sit back and look at where you are today. Would you be there without the soldiers of the last 100 years? No - you wouldnt. You would be speaking a different language most likely. Heck, you might even be a lamp shade.

War is a horrible thing. If anything - you should feel pity for those who go do the bidding of a political engine you disagree with. For it is not the hand that is guilty when a murder is committed - but the brain that commanded the actions of the hand. If you feel that there is murder and debased action coming from this war - who is at fault? Is it your neighbor who got the order to mobilize - or the leadership of your country that sent him?

Lastly - realize that in many ways - a soldier is much like a police officer. He is there to serve and protect his countryman. If its a matter of "borders" - do you not realize that there are those that would threaten you while outside your borders? Perhaps a police officer should never act to thwart a murder just because he is outside his normal jurisdiction?

Ultimately its moot, because you see it your way - and honestly you have made it clear that you had a preformed opinion that a soldier is a mercenary and an assasin. Here in the US at least, some in the leftist movement still has the decency to pretend to support those who put their life on the line. They say "support the troops - not the war". A few of them them even mean it, and those folks at least have a clear understanding of the difference or the political and military facets of a war.

Aramike

06-11-09, 11:56 PM

Haplo - you hit the nail square on the head. :salute:

CaptainHaplo

06-12-09, 06:21 AM

Its all great to claim that "men fight wars" - but in every war there is an aggressor and a defender. To lump every soldier as evil without recognizing that is to overgeneralize - purposely.

Second - your "if everyone just stayed home all would be well" shows what I call an Ostrich mentality. You have your head in the sand. In case you haven't noticed - your country isn't self sufficient. Neither is mine. No one is really. So you have interests that are critical to your survival outside your borders. What do you do when someone threatens those interests? Are you going to allow your society to collapse because its not in your backyard?

I guess its ok for a whack job to have a nuke - as long as he can't launch it at YOU right? Oh - then what happens when he figures out how to pack it into a briefcase because he doesn't like the fact your not sending him food, energy or resources from YOUR country? Or maybe he just thinks your not the right religion?

Keep your head in the sand - there are others out there watching out for you. You may not thank them - but you need them nonetheless.

Also - I can't help you personally never felt like a man until you did what you did - but I guess every person is different. Making a commitment and then running away from it makes you feel all beefy - I can only hope you never marry or have children, else you might feel a need to get all "manly" in that too.....

onelifecrisis

06-12-09, 07:07 AM

Bah. I sent a long PM to Aramike as promised and he replied with a refusal to discuss the matter further (with some vitriolic abuse thrown in) and concluded very interestingly with this:

Look, I don't expect to change your opinions, nor should you expect to change mine. But, here's where I see things: people like me are the ones holding the guns, willing to fight for the rights of people like you. One day, though, people like me may decide that it is immoral to fight for people like you, and abandon you to your own devices.

In which case, you'd be screwed by your own morality which collapses under the weight of the real world.

Just think: how stupid would it be to cry "freedom of speech!!!" to someone holding a gun to your head telling you to shut the hell up?

Who do you think will save you?

This is the first time I've ever posted any part of a PM in public but in this case I will not apologise for it. I'd like to highlight two sentences for the consideration of anyone who thinks this subject matter important or interesting:

people like me are the ones holding the guns

how stupid would it be to cry "freedom of speech!!!" to someone holding a gun to your head telling you to shut the hell up?

So I need people like Aramike to protect me from people like Aramike in the real world? Wasn't Ghandi part of the real world?

antikristuseke

06-12-09, 07:33 AM

So I need people like Aramike to protect me from people like Aramike in the real world?

In a nutshel, yes. Though I dont know Aramike well ennough to say that people like him are needed. The world is a pretty sucky place and there are *******s all over the place, you just need some *******s to be on "your side" since there are some on other sides. As distasteful as that sounds to you, thats the way things are.

Note: I do not mean to call men and women in armed forces all *******s.

As someone stated earlyer in this threads, soldiers are a nessesary evil due to human nature.

onelifecrisis

06-12-09, 07:36 AM

onelifecrisis

06-12-09, 07:43 AM

In a nutshel, yes. Though I dont know Aramike well ennough to say that people like him are needed. The world is a pretty sucky place and there are *******s all over the place, you just need some *******s to be on "your side" since there are some on other sides. As distasteful as that sounds to you, thats the way things are.

Note: I do not mean to call men and women in armed forces all *******s.

As someone stated earlyer in this threads, soldiers are a nessesary evil due to human nature.

Again, I refer you to Ghandi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi).

And I think it was me who used the words "necessary evil" but to be honest I was just trying (in vain) to soften the blow of my main point, which (as I stated in that post) was the "evil" bit. Since things have gotten heated anyway, I may as well admit that I'm not sure whether they really are necessary or not, but contrary to the posts some are making, I'm in this debate to learn if I can (among other reasons).

GoldenRivet

06-12-09, 08:16 AM

OLC i have respect for you which is why i have refrained from attacking you personally on the 6 pages of this thread.

but i must tell you, your ghandi argument holds little water.

Ghandi was a single man.

a good example yes... but ONE man.

so long as the world is filled with billions of people of differing opinions, nationalities, differing flawed religions etc... and out of those billions of people, just a small percentage are violent, evil individuals... the soldier is necessary.

i wish we lived in a peaceful world where there was no need for wars or jails or any of that garbage... but we dont... and no matter how hard we wish we did, it will be a very difficult ideal to accomplish simply because there are too many who are too scared of the world to put their weapons down.

the only way for this world to be in perfect harmony, and perfect balance, without evil or wrong doing... is if it were occupied by trees, grass, flowers, rocks, birds and animals only - no man.

onelifecrisis

06-12-09, 08:19 AM

I'm not following you GR. Ghandi was one man, but I don't see what difference that makes.

Edit:
Let me rephrase. You say soldiers are necessary, but Ghandi proved that they aren't. He proved it with the help of hundreds of millions who agreed with his stance. Are you under the impression that he stood alone?

onelifecrisis

06-12-09, 08:38 AM

Boy, how can you possibly debate anything when the goalposts are moved so far off.

Yeah, well, it's normal for people to try to shift a debate from ground where they are losing from ground they think they can win on. Sort of like a battle... is that ironic, do you think? :hmmm:

Anyway, some of the debate is still on track, so don't let Haplo derail it with his childish insults.

Skybird

06-12-09, 09:13 AM

Regarding the difference between soldiers, mercs and murderers, and regarding the going of this debate as well:

Was der vielen Worte machen,
was soll das?
Es steht die Sache
einzig auf diesem Schwerte,
auf dieser Klinge allein.

Yosano Hiroshi Tekkan

;)

onelifecrisis

06-12-09, 09:35 AM

Please translate?

Letum

06-12-09, 09:51 AM

Edit:
Let me rephrase. You say soldiers are necessary, but Ghandi proved that they aren't.

Chinchillas bathe in sand, but that does not prove that water is unnecessary.

onelifecrisis

06-12-09, 10:09 AM

Chinchillas bathe in sand, but that does not prove that water is unnecessary.

You're saying that just because Ghandi succeeded using non-violent resistance, it doesn't mean that violent resistance is never needed? Then I ask you where, in your opinion, is the line? At what level of foreign aggression do you say "here is the magical crossover point where violence becomes necessary"?

Skybird

06-12-09, 10:27 AM

It's like in chess, your plan and your strategy of choice only is as strong as the opponent allows it to be. Ghandi only succeeded, because he dealt with the British Empire, and that, after all bad that could also be said about it, still was an entity of relative civilisation and scruples.

Consider ghandi having to deal with the Chinese on the Teananmen Square. Or Stalin. Hitler. The Mongoles. Probably the Romans. The Tzars. The Almohades. The Khmer Rouge. The Djandjaweed in Sudan. Some of the bloodthirsty factions in one of the many African civil wars.

Ghandi is massively overestimated, becasue his example represents an idol of "civilised" thinking how resistance shoulkd be, and how it should succeed by being that. It is a tale from (for) a perfect world, or in other words: an exception from the rule. But that is more a wishful tought, than dedication to reality. The best reply to Ghandi comes from Roosevelt: speak with a calm voice, and always carry a big club with you.

Sorry, I searched for a potent translation of that poem, but found none. Just translating it word by word it means something like "Why making all these many words, what is it good for? The issue is at this (on this?) sword, at (on) this blade alone."

And to quote from a movie: "Once the bullets start flying past your head, ideals go straight out of the window."

onelifecrisis

06-12-09, 10:35 AM

It's like in chess, your plan and your strategy of choice only is as strong as the opponent allows it to be. Ghandi only succeeded, because he dealt with the British Empire, and that after all bad that could also be said mabout it, still was an antittiy of relatived civilisation and scruples.

Not in Ghandi's opinion. When asked what he thought of western civilisation, he said "I think it would be a good idea". Still, I take your point and in response I ask you the same question I asked Letum.

Consider ghandi having to deal with the Chinese on the Teananmen Square. Or Stalin. Hitler. The Mongoles. Probably the Romans. The Tzars. The Almohades. The Khmer Rouge.

Ghandi is massively overestimated, becasue his example represents an idol of "civilised" thinking how resistance shoulkd be, and how it shouls succeed by that. But that is more a wishful tought, than dedication to reality.

Wishful thinking? Er, didn't he succeed? I'm pretty sure he succeeded. In reality.

Letum

06-12-09, 11:00 AM

Edit:
Let me rephrase. You say soldiers are necessary, but Ghandi proved that they aren't.Chinchillas bathe in sand, but that does not prove that water is unnecessary. You're saying that just because Ghandi succeeded using non-violent resistance, it doesn't mean that violent resistance is never needed?

Close enough.

You made an argument that ran along the lines of:
"Gandhi achieved Independence for India with out the use of soldiers
Therefore soldiers are unnecessary."

To say:
"Someone achieved X with out needing Y
Therefore Y is unnecessary"
Is clearly not a valid argument.
That is what I was trying to show when I said:
"It is not the case that because Chinchillas bathe in sand, water is
unnecessary."

The closest valid argument to what you saids:
"Gandhi achieved Independence for India with out the use of soldiers
Therefore soldiers are not always necessary to achieve independence."

At what level of foreign aggression do you say "here is the magical crossover point where violence becomes necessary"? I don't. Just because I disagree with your argument, it doesn't necessarily mean I
disagree with your conclusions.

Aramike

06-12-09, 11:00 AM

Bah. I sent a long PM to Aramike as promised and he replied with a refusal to discuss the matter further (with some vitriolic abuse thrown in) and concluded very interestingly with this:

This is the first time I've ever posted any part of a PM in public but in this case I will not apologise for it. I'd like to highlight two sentences for the consideration of anyone who thinks this subject matter important or interesting:

people like me are the ones holding the guns

how stupid would it be to cry "freedom of speech!!!" to someone holding a gun to your head telling you to shut the hell up?

So I need people like Aramike to protect me from people like Aramike in the real world? Wasn't Ghandi part of the real world?Heh, hilarious how you'd post this in the first place, but alas, your Ghandi example is pointless. Where's the Ghandi that stopped Nazi Germany?

That line of thinking is why Tibet is free, I suppose *sarcasm*.

And yes, you need people like me, with guns to protect you from other people with guns that are aimed in YOUR direction. Your La-La-Land aside, in the real world peace is almost ALWAYS at gunpoint.

UnderseaLcpl

06-12-09, 11:21 AM

OLC raises some interesting points but I think the use of Ghandi as an example of successful nonviolent resistance is a dead-end.

India's independence only came after the British Empire had been rent asunder and bankrupted by 6 years of war. When Ghandi first tried his Quit India movement, the response from the Empire was a series of military reprisals and mass arrests.

Ghandi himself then met a violent end, unwillingly passing control of his nation to what became a socialist elite cadre that left the country languishing in poverty for decades.

Hardly the example I would choose.

onelifecrisis

06-12-09, 11:36 AM

India's independence only came after the British Empire had been rent asunder and bankrupted by 6 years of war. When Ghandi first tried his Quit India movement, the response from the Empire was a series of military reprisals and mass arrests.

The British arrests and imprisonments you refer to only served to strengthen support for Ghandi's cause in India. Also, you can't demonstrate that the lack of British bankruptcy would have resulted in Ghandi's failure, so that point is moot, no?

onelifecrisis

06-12-09, 11:46 AM

You made an argument that ran along the lines of:
"Gandhi achieved Independence for India with out the use of soldiers
Therefore soldiers are unnecessary."

To say:
"Someone achieved X with out needing Y
Therefore Y is unnecessary"
Is clearly not a valid argument.
That is what I was trying to show when I said:
"It is not the case that because Chinchillas bathe in sand, water is
unnecessary."

The closest valid argument to what you saids:
"Gandhi achieved Independence for India with out the use of soldiers
Therefore soldiers are not always necessary to achieve independence."

Agreed, hence the response I posted to you/anyone.

Skybird

06-12-09, 12:35 PM

Not in Ghandi's opinion. When asked what he thought of western civilisation, he said "I think it would be a good idea".

Maybe I am slow today, but - what?

Still, I take your point and in response I ask you the same question I asked Letum.

What?

Again, Ghandi is overestimated. Many powers would not have backed down, but would have shot, stabbed, hacked, chopped and bombed him and all his followers into pieces.

And in many places it still gets done this way until today.

Ghandi simply was lucky. Needing to be lucky - makes a bad ideal to follow. I recommend not to invest into that strategy.

Or to return to my reference to chess: do not follow plans that only can function if the opponent cooperates with your intention by playing weak moves.

onelifecrisis

06-12-09, 12:58 PM

What?

Okay, ignore it. It's funny how I've been accused of having my head in the sand and now so many are burying their heads in the sand with regards to Ghandi. :hmmm:

antikristuseke

06-12-09, 01:03 PM

I wouldnt say that, more like Ghandi is one example of the success of non violence. While it is good that it took place, it is hardly anything more than a precedent. True, it would be nice if it were more than just a single example of such success, it is the exeption, not the rule.

The example is not being ignored, but aknowleged for what it is. Good idea though it is, it is not a realistic one.

Skybird

06-12-09, 01:05 PM

Okay, ignore it. It's funny how I've been accused of having my head in the sand and now so many are burying their heads in the sand with regards to Ghandi. :hmmm:

What?

If you want to confuse me, congratulations. You succeeded.

onelifecrisis

06-12-09, 01:19 PM

I wouldnt say that, more like Ghandi is one example of the success of non violence. While it is good that it took place, it is hardly anything more than a precedent. True, it would be nice if it were more than just a single example of such success...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_resistance#History_of_nonviolent_resist ance

The example is not being ignored, but aknowleged for what it is. Good idea though it is, it is not a realistic one.

Define "realistic"? I have given a real-world example in response to accusations of a lack of realism, and I'm being repeatedly rebutted with "that's not realistic" so I would very much like to know what Ghandi did in your version of reality?

@Skybird:
Where, in your opinion, is the line? At what level of foreign aggression do you say "here is the magical crossover point where violence becomes necessary"?

antikristuseke

06-12-09, 01:22 PM

Define "realistic"? I have given a real-world example in response to accusations of a lack of realism, and I'm being repeatedly rebutted with "that's not realistic" so I would very much like to know what Ghandi did in your version of reality?

No, you misunderstand me. I am not disputing what took place, I am saying that while it happen once it it is not likely to happen again, because people, in general, are *******s.

Sailor Steve

06-12-09, 01:25 PM

[edited]
I admit that I oversimplified with the words "direct result".
I was just referring to the fact that it was Chamberlain, not Churchill, who was PM at the beginning of the war. I can't argue that the wonderful Mr. C had his own motives and may have indeed pushed for war before the fact. The same could also be said of any leader at that time, or any other time. I don't pretend to know the answer to that one.

Or any one, for that matter.

UnderseaLcpl

06-12-09, 01:29 PM

The British arrests and imprisonments you refer to only served to strengthen support for Ghandi's cause in India. Also, you can't demonstrate that the lack of British bankruptcy would have resulted in Ghandi's failure, so that point is moot, no?

Given the longstanding tradition of Britain holding onto its' territories despite revolts and the like I would say it is not a moot point. Pretty much the only examples of the British Empire losing colonies occurred when it was preoccupied with other matters, especially fiscal ones. So while I obviously cannot demonstrate that he himself wouldn't have succeeded (the Empire did fall, after all), I'll readily point you towards a long list of failed uprisings of all types preceding that.
Furthermore, Ghandi was in prison when the British agreed to cede control, and violence continued in the period between that and the Quit India movement, so I challenge you to prove that he was the primary factor, rather than those I have posited.

That being said, I am not in total disagreement with you. I find your assessment that a soldier, wielded in the hands of the state, is capable of immoral killing. That is very true, and is often the case. But does that make the soldier immoral? Soldiers are just tools, and necessary ones at that. They are molded just as bullets are, and are usually no more immoral than a bullet when they strike and kill a target. All the immorality resides in the finger that pulls the trigger, in this case, the state.

onelifecrisis

06-12-09, 01:29 PM

I was just referring to the fact that it was Chamberlain, not Churchill, who was PM at the beginning of the war.

I did wonder - thanks for clarifying.

I don't pretend to know the answer to that one.

Or any one, for that matter.

"the only knowledge a man can have is the knowledge that he doesn't know anything" (or something like that)
- Plato (I think)

:up:

Skybird

06-12-09, 03:03 PM

@Skybird:

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis
Where, in your opinion, is the line? At what level of foreign aggression do you say "here is the magical crossover point where violence becomes necessary"?

When Ghandi's way does not work and you are still not willing to give up your cause.

Simple, isn't it.

As little violance as possible. As much as needed.

Letum

06-12-09, 03:34 PM

As little violance as possible. As much as needed.

Even when you reach the point where the good outcome you wish to achieve
is utterly eclipsed by violence required to achieve it?

Aramike

06-12-09, 03:48 PM

Even when you reach the point where the good outcome you wish to achieve
is utterly eclipsed by violence required to achieve it?Please quantify this.

Letum

06-12-09, 04:16 PM

Even when you reach the point where the good outcome you wish to achieve
is utterly eclipsed by violence required to achieve it?
Please quantify this.

I'm not sure what information you want.
It is a general question with no specific quantities.

Any quantity will suffice so long as the quantity of violence is significantly
larger than the good you hope to achieve.

Aramike

06-12-09, 04:19 PM

I'm not sure what information you want.
It is a general question with no specific quantities.

Any quantity will suffice so long as the quantity of violence is significantly
larger than the good you hope to achieve.That's kind of my point. How do you measure an amount of "good" and an amount of violence?

Skybird

06-12-09, 04:23 PM

Even when you reach the point where the good outcome you wish to achieve
is utterly eclipsed by violence required to achieve it?
If that's what I want, yes. If not, no.

Do it, or don't. ;)

Letum

06-12-09, 05:14 PM

That's kind of my point. How do you measure an amount of "good" and an amount of violence?

It certainly isn't an exact science, but I think most people have a sense that
starting a nuclear war to force a country to repeal a unjust travel ban to your
country is a case of the violence overshadowing the good that will be
achieved.

Warhawk

06-12-09, 05:39 PM

A soldier is bound by rules of war...the others not so much

CaptainHaplo

06-12-09, 06:15 PM

Boy talk about jumping around and not sticking to a topic.

I haven't moved any goalposts - nor do I see a need to do so.

Ghandi's name keeps popping up. Well guess what - you know why Ghandi is so well known? Because he was one of the FEW to be associated with a success.

Take the Dhali Lama - he advocates peaceful change. And where is he? He isn't in Tibet is he? Nope - he had to run off because the mean people with guns were - and are - out to get him. He doesn't return because he knows if he did - he wouldn't survive long. He would be arrested, tried and killed (or held indefinitely till his death). How's that for an "effective" movement?

Better yet - who does he go to? Those who will PROTECT him from the intent of the "meanies".

Now don't get me wrong - I fully support peaceful change - I think thats the way it SHOULD be when it can be accomplished. But more often than not - violence wins over non-violence.

Another example - Tienamens square. Peaceful students vs tanks. Who won? Sure they succeeded in bringing attention to the matter internationally - but exactly how does that help those who died? And really - how much true change has been effected for the average person?

I could list literally hundreds of instances where peaceful means simply failed. Look at most elections in Africa and South America if you want examples. They abound there. Why? Due to the corruption of the ruling powers and their willingness to use force to subdue and intimidate the opposition.

Its great to sit by and think the world would be better if everyone would get around the global campfire and sing Kumbaya.... And it would. However, the reality is that there are too many of those that choose to use their followers to force others to conform for that "utopian" ideal to ever be achieved. If you can't see that - your still an ostrich.

Thus - the soldier is the man (or woman) who is willing to stand between you and those who would force you - even to the point of dying to protect you.

As to the question of when has government ever used a military force in a moral manner - depends on which government you mean. Each instance is different. Again that gets to the issue of is a war justified. That decision is - and your obviously beginning to realize - a political issue - decided by a CIVILIAN government - and not by the soldier.

Thus - to try to morally equate a soldier to an assassin or mercenary still fails. If you want to equate some governmental actions as "mercenary" in essence - then thats another issue.

I wonder how you would classify those who blow up their fellow countrymen in an attempt to force regime change when their countrymen selected the ruling government by their own choice? How "moral" is their action in relation to those of a soldier who is assisting a duly elected by the people government to survive, at the behest of his own societies interest?

Why is it always so one sided when these "morality" issues are raised? The truth is that there was - and is - an agenda to the question that is intended to besmirch those carry out an action that you have POLITICAL differences with.

Letum

06-12-09, 07:42 PM

The Dhali L. is a poor example.
Had he preached violence and asked for a violent resistance, a gorilla
movement, or even terrorism, Tibet would still be very much in Chinese hands
and a lot of people would be worse off than they are now besides.

ed:
So is Tienamens square.
had the students attempted a violent protest they would have been crushed
just as easily and with more deaths. Any international (and later national)
message that the failed peaceful protest sent out would not have been
conveyed had it been a violent protest.

I'm not saying there aren't any good examples, but these aren't two of them.

CaptainHaplo

06-12-09, 08:40 PM

On the contrary Letum. The issue is one of whether or not PEACEFUL protest - as Ghandi used - is on the whole - effective against repression or "evil" dictates or governmental actions.

Whether or not violent response would have been more successful - or not - is irrelevant. The position has been taken that peaceful resistance - ala Ghandi - is the "way" to correct such injustices. The facts are simply that guys like the DL have tried - and the failure of such strategies is thus apparent.

Personally - I have nothing against peaceful protests. I am thankful that here in my country its often used by the people to speak their mind and affect policy. Whether I always agree is another issue entirely - but thats neither here nor there.

The difference is that when you have a segment of power that will use force to ENFORCE its will - peaceful resistance historically fails much more than it succeeds.

The DL and Tianaman's square instances are perfect examples of peaceful strategies that failed utterly.

onelifecrisis

06-12-09, 09:24 PM

Whether or not violent response would have been more successful - or not - is irrelevant. The position has been taken that peaceful resistance - ala Ghandi - is the "way" to correct such injustices. The facts are simply that guys like the DL have tried - and the failure of such strategies is thus apparent.

If that's your logic then the fact that (defensive) violence also historically fails more often than it succeeds is proof (by your reasoning) that violence is a... "failure strategy" or whatever you're calling it.

onelifecrisis

06-12-09, 09:30 PM

When Ghandi's way does not work and you are still not willing to give up your cause.

Simple, isn't it.

As little violance as possible. As much as needed.

Maybe I'm misreading you, but it sounds like you think Ghandi's way should be tried first? Although, given the wink icon on the quoted post, I can't be sure that it's not some sort of joke which I'm not getting.

Letum

06-12-09, 09:34 PM

The DL and Tianaman's square instances are perfect examples of peaceful strategies that failed utterly.

That isn't saying much if violent approaches would have failed even more
utterly. That would make the peaceful approach the best possible approach of
the two.

That doesn't seem to be a great argument against peaceful means as opposed
to violent means.

Aramike

06-13-09, 03:15 AM

That isn't saying much if violent approaches would have failed even more
utterly. That would make the peaceful approach the best possible approach of
the two.You are no doubt correct. However, you kind of make the point: the BEST POSSIBLE APPROACH is peace and should therefore be attempted first. But, when that approach fails, a violent approach will be neccessary.

These are points that I don't believe anyone is disputing.

Letum

06-13-09, 07:15 AM

You are no doubt correct. However, you kind of make the point: the BEST POSSIBLE APPROACH is peace and should therefore be attempted first. But, when that approach fails, a violent approach will be neccessary.

These are points that I don't believe anyone is disputing.

So you think that there should have been a violent protest after the peaceful
TSq. protest? What would that achieve?
If the best possible approach failed, why would any less better approaches
succeeded?

Skybird

06-13-09, 08:03 AM

Peaceful protest is used when there is a chnace for it to succeed. Violant protest is used when peaceful attempts do not or will not work, and the violant approach has a realistic czhnace to succeed.

If there is no chance to succeed, you better do not try this day, and wait for a better one, or turn towards alternative strategies. Sabotage, for example. Espionage. Assassinations. preparing for civil war, whatever.

It is not enough to just have the pieces to launch an attack on the king.l you also mjust be in a position where you can launch an attack, you must have the needed tempi and therefore must consider the right time as well.

In the case of that Chinese protest, asI see it that was an event unfolding due to the protesters allowing to be carried away by emotions, and not using their heads. I think they could have forseen the reqaction by the state. I already thought that back then when we sat at the TV and watching the news. I do not know if they have had sufficient pieces in play, I doubt it. But their timing definitely was a mess, and they did not seem to have a realistic polan for a promisijng combination to topple the king.

By that I do not excuse the massacre, nor do I say the government was right. I just say that the protesters imo were simply somewhat stupid. Lead by well-meant dreams and intentions, courageous - but still stupid. As I see it, they did not have a chance from the very beginning. Not the right position, not the right timing, and not the right composition of material. Maybe they saw somebody else winning at the neighbouring board, and allowed to feel inspired by that. But that it were two completely different matches - this is what escaped their attention, maybe.

Skybird

06-13-09, 08:09 AM

Maybe I'm misreading you, but it sounds like you think Ghandi's way should be tried first? Although, given the wink icon on the quoted post, I can't be sure that it's not some sort of joke which I'm not getting.

Sure. Acchieving your goal in a peacefuil way is better than using violance when violance is not needed. But try that peaceful thing only when you assess the situation and come to the conclusion that there is a realistic chance for peaceful strategies to work. Do not try it like you throw a Hail-Mary-pass - then you better wait for a better day. Do not try it just because you are desperate (or feel good).

If you start without assessing the situation, or your conclusion that peaceful ways could work, is wrong, you end up like the Chinese protesters in Bejing.

As I just said above in that analogy to chess, all three factors are important: timing, position, material. Ignore one, and you will likely lose.

Letum

06-13-09, 08:21 AM

SB: You talk as if TSq. wasn't a success.
I would say it's a sizable chink in the Chinese regime's armor to this day.
I think there is little doubt that when reform comes, it will come all the sooner
because of TSq.

Skybird

06-13-09, 08:29 AM

Letum

06-13-09, 08:39 AM

Well, quite. A Pyrrhic sucsess then.

CaptainHaplo

06-13-09, 09:58 AM

I see there are some fortune tellers among us..
Paraphrasing:
"IF violence had been used in protest it would have been worse - so that would have failed even more utterly"

Really? How do we know that? It didn't happen - so we really have no way of knowing now do we? One can take the known facts and theorize, but you don't KNOW for certain, because in any conflict, the smallest factor can change the landscape entirely.

As for "defensive violence" - how do you figure that it is less successful than peaceful protest pitted against violence?

Ok - lets find out. You point out specific historical instances violent force has been overcome with peaceful protest but where violent defensive action has failed. I will do the same on the reverse - showing where violent force has overcome peaceful protest and where a violent defense has been effective. Whoever can show the longest historical trend can be deemed to have proven the point....

Right now - you have one - with Ghandi in India. So thats one point for you....

I have 2 - the Dhali Lama and Tienamens' square. I will throw out a few others while we are at it.

#3. The Taking of Hawaii from the Hawiians - force overcame peace.
#4. The successful Defense of Liberty resulting in Indepedance for the US. Defensive force successful.
#5. French underground restance to Nazi occupation, which assisted in freeing France. Defencsive Force Successful.
#6. The taking of American Indian Land - see items like "The Trail of Tears" and other historical notes where peaceful protests failed to curb aggression and force. Again - violent force overcoming peaceful protest.

I could go on and on - but in the interest of allowing you an opportunity to PROVE your point instead of just blathering on without facts to back it up, I will stop here so you have a chance to catch up on the scoreboard.....

Peace - 1
Violence - 6

Letum

06-13-09, 02:06 PM

I see there are some fortune tellers among us..
Paraphrasing:
"IF violence had been used in protest it would have been worse - so that would have failed even more utterly"

Really? How do we know that?

Now that's just silly!
Unarmed students trying to be violent towards tanks and the army?
What do you see as the best outcome from that?

Equally daft is trying to claim the better argument by way of citing the
most examples. I can come up with thousands of examples of battles won
with swords and spears, but only a few hundred won with guns. That
doesn't mean swords are better than guns.

Besides, Ghandi wasn't a triumph of peace over force. The British didn't use
much force at all. It was more a triumph of peace over peace.

Aramike

06-13-09, 02:11 PM

So you think that there should have been a violent protest after the peaceful
TSq. protest? What would that achieve?
If the best possible approach failed, why would any less better approaches
succeeded?This argument is heavily flawed. When using "better", we've been referring to the morality of an approach, not it's effectiveness. By that argument, yes, peaceful protest is the "best" approach.

But if you want to discuss the effectiveness, there will surely be times when violence would be more likely to be effective.

Skybird

06-13-09, 02:20 PM

It was more a triumph of peace over peace.

Ah. What you say! ;)

OneToughHerring

06-13-09, 02:55 PM

Now that's just silly!Besides, Ghandi wasn't a triumph of peace over force. The British didn't use
much force at all. It was more a triumph of peace over peace.

A long colonisation such as the one India experienced never comes without the use of significant force. Even if the Brits were good at hiding their violence as 'policing' etc. E.g. the Amritsar-massacre. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_Massacre)

Letum

06-13-09, 03:57 PM

This argument is heavily flawed. When using "better", we've been referring to the morality of an approach, not it's effectiveness. By that argument, yes, peaceful protest is the "best" approach.

But if you want to discuss the effectiveness, there will surely be times when violence would be more likely to be effective.

Assuming you believe your cause to be morally right, effectiveness and
morality are very much interlinked.

You can't be good ineffectually and still claim you have been good.

Aramike

06-13-09, 05:48 PM

Assuming you believe your cause to be morally right, effectiveness and
morality are very much interlinked.

You can't be good ineffectually and still claim you have been good.I'm not sure this holds water.

Let's examine an example: say you were looking to overthrow a despot. As agreed upon earlier, a peaceful attempt at doing so would be the better option, and is used first. It fails. Next, the NON-"better" option, a violent revolution, is tried and succeeds.

Now going back to your statement:
If the best possible approach failed, why would any less better approaches
succeeded?So, we are left with one of two possibilities:

1 - "Better" does not equate to effectiveness, or;
2 - The non-violent approach is not always "better".

This goes back to this statement that you made (and I agree with):That would make the peaceful approach the best possible approach of
the two. Considering that this statement isn't qualified by the results but rather the behavior itself, effectiveness is irrelevent.

Skybird

06-13-09, 05:57 PM

War and peace are two totally different states of the human world, and both have very different sets of morality, with only partial overlaps. What is moral in one, may be immoral in the other. You can't use morals of peace to judge a state of war and to decide what you need to do next in that war. Morals of war obviously cannot be used to describe a state of peace, and would even destroy it.

Where this is not understood, only confusion results. Sometimes self-tormenting, existential confusion, leading to depression, mental suffering, self-destruction and suicide.

To keep that effectiveness-thing into perspective a bit.

onelifecrisis

06-13-09, 06:12 PM

War and peace are two totally different states of the human world, and both have very different sets of morality, with only partial overlaps.

I couldn't more strongly disagree with this. Again, where is the crossover from one to the other? When one man attacks? Two? Three? A hundred? A thousand? Must they be acting in the name of a government? A religion? Is it simply a case of when your government declares war? In which case, your statement would mean that you'd change your morals from one predefined set to another because someone else says that, in their opinion, the state of the world you now live in has changed?

Boiling it down to the simplest form, at what point does a disagreement between two individuals become a "war" in miniature? When a fist is raised, or after it has struck? When a weapon is pulled? When it is aimed? Fired? What if these things are threatened verbally first?

There are no such lines and any you try to draw can be picked apart a thousand times. We live in one reality, not two or three or more.

Skybird

06-13-09, 06:33 PM

I couldn't more strongly disagree with this. Again, where is the crossover from one to the other? When one man attacks? Two? Three? A hundred? A thousand? Must they be acting in the name of a government? A religion? Is it simply a case of when your government declares war? In which case, your statement would mean that you'd change your morals from one predefined set to another because someone else says that, in their opinion, the state of the world you now live in has changed?

If you ever will walk a place of war, you will know where the crossover is immediately. You will not even need somebody explaing it to you, you will realise it all by yourself.

onelifecrisis

06-13-09, 06:36 PM

To me the price for that symbolic message has been far too high. The creeping capitalism has caused more change in China, than the massacre. It also has no huge meaning to the inner side of Chinese society, and is made a big thing of only in foreign nations. when the government seals off the square on birthday of the massacre, most Chinse seem to think of that as a natural thing.

There's a lot of unqualified statements in your post (not all of which I have quoted).

I didn't know they sealed off the square, but I would say that if the events in the square are no big deal to the Chinese then why seal off the square? Besides, I've seen recent interviews which indicate that the events of 1989 are, today, a highly taboo subject in China among the current generation of Chinese teenagers. An interviewer showed Chinese students those famous photos of the student before the tank. They all looked blank. One whispered "1989" under his breath, and the others all looked away from him. The interviewer then asked them whether they knew what the photos were about, and they turned to the interviewer and gave answers like "No idea, some sort of military parade or something? I don't know." None of them asked the boy what he meant by "1989" and the boy himself claimed he had no idea what was being depicted in the photos.

For an event to be so well known (by children who were not then alive) and yet still taboo after 20 years suggests to me that it has had a fairly profound impact on that culture. It's certainly not "no big deal" as you make out.

onelifecrisis

06-13-09, 06:44 PM

If you ever will walk a place of war, you will know where the crossover is immediately. You will not even need somebody explaing it to you, you will realise it all by yourself.

Perhaps you're right! But if that ever happens, I might need someone to explain to me where my "change morality now" button is.

Letum

06-13-09, 06:51 PM

SB appears to me to follow a principle of "total war" in which he justifies any
act, however despicable, in the name of military advantage; the slaughter
of countless millions for a inch of ground.

Aramike

06-13-09, 07:02 PM

Perhaps you're right! But if that ever happens, I might need someone to explain to me where my "change morality now" button is.That's kind of exactly how it works. Hence, the point that although certain things may be distasteful, that doesn't make them immoral.

Morality (and more poignantly, ethics), has always been subject to context. The absolute deontologist will contend that what is wrong will always be wrong. Unfortunately for him, though, the human experience puts a strain on this argument as he will undoubtedly find kill-or-be-killed to be an unresolvable paradox.

Good and evil must be a choice - not the default state. So if one is put into a position with where the only choices are to commit what the absolutist considers to be "evil", it would become the default state. The reason this doesn't work is due to the fact that the words themselves MUST define a specific state, otherwise they'd have no meaning other than "is". As such, let's say Bob has to kill a man to prevent him from killing Bob's wife. If Bob allows his wife to be killed, that could be considered an evil act. If Bob kills the person who threatens his wife, that could also be considered evil. As such, describing Bob's state as evil really describes nothing more than "Bob is".

The only way to resolve this paradox is to define evil by putting it in context. That means, what is evil at one state does not neccessarily make it evil in another.

Aramike

06-13-09, 07:03 PM

SB appears to me to follow a principle of "total war" in which he justifies any
act, however despicable, in the name of military advantage; the slaughter
of countless millions for a inch of ground.That's not at all what he's doing. He's making the argument that perspective regulates morality - he's not defining morality itself.

Letum

06-13-09, 07:06 PM

The only way to resolve this paradox is to define evil by putting it in context. That means, what is evil at one state does not neccessarily make it evil in another.

That is far from the only way.
I'm not one to defend any deontological approach, but it could be argued that
an evil is always equally evil, but that selecting it over a greater evil is a
good thing to do.

Letum

06-13-09, 07:07 PM

That's not at all what he's doing. He's making the argument that perspective regulates morality - he's not defining morality itself.

I would be surprised if SB disagrees with me. He certainly hasn't on this point
in past discussions.

onelifecrisis

06-13-09, 07:11 PM

Good and evil must be a choice - not the default state. So if one is put into a position with where the only choices are to commit what the absolutist considers to be "evil", it would become the default state. The reason this doesn't work is due to the fact that the words themselves MUST define a specific state, otherwise they'd have no meaning other than "is". As such, let's say Bob has to kill a man to prevent him from killing Bob's wife. If Bob allows his wife to be killed, that could be considered an evil act. If Bob kills the person who threatens his wife, that could also be considered evil. As such, describing Bob's state as evil really describes nothing more than "Bob is".

The only way to resolve this paradox is to define evil by putting it in context. That means, what is evil at one state does not neccessarily make it evil in another.

You've made a mistake. The point of view that "if Bob does kill the man, that is evil" is one point of view. The point of view that "if Bob does not kill the man, that is evil" is another point of view. There is only a paradox for those who would claim to support both points of view.

Captain Vlad

06-13-09, 07:33 PM

My own personal take on the original question of this thread...

Soldier: A person who serves in a military or paramilitary organization organized by the government of a government entity, is given military training by that organization, and is expected to fight or engage in other combat-related tasks on behalf of that government.

Mercenary: A person, generally one who is, used to be, or has similar skills to a soldier who will act as a soldier for paid compensation.

Assassin: A person who kills or attempts to kill a specific individual for some 'higher' purpose, generally a cause or profit.

Note that things like ideology and loyalty to ones country don't come into play in my definition of 'mercenary' or 'soldier'.

There have been plenty of mercenaries who would really only fight for specific customers, but for whatever reasons did not chose to be involved with that nation's actual military on an official basis. There have also been plenty of mercenaries who were attracted to certain causes, such as the large number of foreign volunteers who fought for both sides in the Spanish Civil War.

As for soldiers...sure, many soldiers have a deep sense of patriotism, but others may have joined up for financial benefit, or to see the world, or because they were drafted. Patriotism is an individual thing, not a defining quality for anyone in a military uniform.

gimpy117

06-13-09, 10:08 PM

I'm afraid this is not a joke. It's something I've been puzzling over for some time.

Assassin
Mercenary
Soldier

Assassin has a cloaking device, dagger, sapper, gun (ambassador or normal) and disquise kit.

Mercenary has a sniper rifle, Kukri knife, and an smg

Soldier has a rocket luancher, shovel and shotty.

I won't go into the scout, engie, heavy, demoman, pyro, or heavy

Aramike

06-13-09, 11:58 PM

You've made a mistake. The point of view that "if Bob does kill the man, that is evil" is one point of view. The point of view that "if Bob does not kill the man, that is evil" is another point of view. There is only a paradox for those who would claim to support both points of view.I don't see how they are two points of view.

In either case, you're allowing someone to be killed, either by your own hand or your decision to NOT prevent the murder.

I'd like to hear your logic on how killing in defense of one's family is evil, by the way.

Aramike

06-14-09, 12:05 AM

That is far from the only way.
I'm not one to defend any deontological approach, but it could be argued that
an evil is always equally evil, but that selecting it over a greater evil is a
good thing to do.That's where perspective comes in.

From the perspective of the greater evil, any "evil" required to prevent it would not be evil.

Take a straight line. Consider yourself starting at the center. Evil is on the left, and good is on the right (pun intended). Let's say that there is a dot on the far left side of the line, and another only halfway down the left side. From the perspective of the far left dot, the not-so-far left dot is on the right.

That's one of the governing principals of perspective. Indeed, from the center perspective both dots are evil. However, considering that morality itself relies upon intention, only the perspective from which the act is committed can qualify/justify the act itself, and whether or not it is indeed evil.

CastleBravo

06-14-09, 12:08 AM

This isn't very original but I think it fits.

Tinker, Tailor,
Soldier, Sailor,
Rich Man, Poor Man,
Beggar Man,
Thief. Or is it fool?

Reguardless of who is fighting the war, soldier, assasin or mercenary(NGO) it is ultimately a cost/benefit analysis based on political, cultural and social dynamics. I have often heard it said that war is diplomacy by other means, I think Clauswitz said it first.

No nation goes to war in a vacuum, thus neither does any soldier, assasin or mercenary(NGO). We can only hope that it isn't entered into lightly.

August

06-14-09, 12:35 AM

The differences as I see them:

The definitions of Mercenary, Soldier and Assassin overlap somewhat. All three share common characteristics which make categorization difficult but not impossible.

1. An assassin is just a specialist whose mission is to kill a specific individual. He can be either a mercenary or a soldier equally.

2. A mercenary is a soldier who works for either private organizations or foreign governments. A non mercenary soldier only serves his own country.

3. A mercenary can be hired individually for a specific mission (such as an assassination) whereas a soldier always enlists to a nationally supported group for a period of time.

4. A mercenaries pay is a reward for a job done. A soldiers pay is an allowance to maintain his effectiveness.

5. A mercenary is a lot less likely than a soldier to deliberately sacrifice his life for the cause for which he fights.

Skybird

06-14-09, 05:08 AM

SB appears to me to follow a principle of "total war" in which he justifies any
act, however despicable, in the name of military advantage; the slaughter
of countless millions for a inch of ground.
I'm not happy with that phrase of total war, due to the historical connotation.

I certainly do not argue to slaughter millions for an inch of a ground. In fact, it is highly ublikley that I would ever justify a war over some inches of ground only.

However, I ceertainly argued in the past, and still do so, that if the decision is made to let lose the dogs of war, one should put all might and power into the effort and should not shy away from doing what is needed to turn this terrible effort into a result one has planned for when making the decision for war.

Just look at the many examples where military operations have been called into life, but withiout heart and detemrination, and without investing into it what it would have needed: especially the UN operations are a history of failures over failures over failures. But also national wars all to often have failed to succeed.

All the loss of life, theirs and ours, all that destruction - in vain. And that in the name of a misunderstood "humanity" and "humane ways to wage wars". Bullsh!t.

If you are not ready to let lose hell itself if that is needed - DON'T START WAR, then. Be cautious, careful and serious and hesitent to make a decision for war.

Note that this attitude of mine has three effects: 1. I am more cautious and hesitent to accept a decision for a war, than many other people here. 2. I weigh the reason pro and contra much more serious and concerned and far less thoughtless and easyminded than many other people. 3. But if I accept a decision for war, then I am willing to invest and to do what is needed to crush the enemy at all costs, and making sure the mission objectives get acchieved - undisputed, uncompromised, and in total. I cannot justify by my own morals and ethical standards to accept a war if not willing to do so and wasting all that killing and destruction in vain.

War is, or is not. Death or life. Fight, or don't. If you have doubts, and are not sure over your motives and your mental ability to carry it out - stay the hell away from war for the sake of your own peace of mind.

Just one thing you should not do: thinking that you can have a little bit of war, but not too much in order to stay civilised. War by definition is the absence of civilisation and order. If you don't understand this, then you do not know what war is.

I strongly believe that everything that makes war worse, helps to make it happen less often, and everything that tries to humanise it, decreases the chances to succeed and make it happening more often nevertheless.

And that perspective-versus-morality thing. The shift from peace to war chnages perspectives indeed. While killing somebody in a state of peace morally is labvelled a crime, in war it is not only allowed, but it is the intention of the effort, and even more, it may be necessary - for example to save the life of others you value dearer to you, or whose life you rate higher in value. Another thing that in peace is not liked to be done: valuin lifes against each other. But in war you do. By the standards of peace, you are evil, then. By the standards of war, you are not, maybe even are acting morally, according to war standards.

Perhaps you're right! But if that ever happens, I might need someone to explain to me where my "change morality now" button is.
No, you would not, believe me. It springs into the eye, then.

Do not understand me wrong, I never have fought in a war, but I have seen scenes and places of wars, and terror. That was in Algeria, and in Eastern Turkey. I also witnessed one terror blast in Berlin in my youth. I claim what I said above due to these unpleasant memories of mine.

If you witness war, you will recognise it all by yourself. You either switch two different assessment of the moral implications of the situation you see all by yourself, or your mind deadlocks and refuses to let go assessing ther situation according to your peacetime morals. Then you have a problem, for the opictures will haunt you, and what you maybe need to do will push you into a moral dilemma you cannot solve, and a certain kind of confusion is the result that can haunt you for years to come.

I once talked with a British professional, who was soldier with heart and passion, and he said something which I believe myself very strongly, too, maybe that is why we got a good wire to each other from the first second on. He said that the grim things you eventually do by your own hands in war, will only haunt you if you are not sure about your motives and motivations, if you have doubts about your cause. He himself, he said, had no sleepless nights over the things he witnessed, for however he thinks about the casues, he saw them as just, and necessary.

Of course, although this is probably true, this attitude holds a risk. It may influence soldiers to eventually take an uncritical stand towards the policies and breasons they have been sent to war for, and they are stubborn to stick to them, no matter what, as a means of self-protection. anbd indeed I often (not always) see an almost naive attitude of innocence and believing in soldiers when it comes to their government's policies. A president may tell them something - and many believe every word of it!

Well, there is always risks invovled, even in peace - and even more in war.

Be hesitent to call for wars.

But if there is war, make nothing less than the unconditional destruction of the enemy your goal, and then put into it whatever is needed.

the most likely historic result will be numerically less, more determined wars. Is that immoral? The Un authoprized a plethora of miliztary operation nhere and there, and fails to legitimiate the needed robustness and failed to establiszh the needed support of these missions. That'S why so damn many military operations by the UN are failures. Now, is that moral?

I think the UN should be forbidden vote for or against miliztary actions. It is incompetent and inadequate a gremium to care for such things. Good intentions and best wishes mean nothing. Nothing.

onelifecrisis

06-14-09, 01:53 PM

I don't see how they are two points of view.

In either case, you're allowing someone to be killed, either by your own hand or your decision to NOT prevent the murder.

I'd like to hear your logic on how killing in defense of one's family is evil, by the way.

You seem to me to be suggesting that if I am able to prevent a murder by murdering the would-be murderer, but I don't do so, then I am responsible for the murderer's murder? In which case, I'd like to hear your logic on how I am now responsible for a murder that I did not commit, plan, or want.

As for the last part - killing in defense of your family - this seems to me to be another version of the sniper and the bomber and the million people, no? Anyway it's quite simple. If I kill the would-be murderer then I have murdered a person. If I don't then I have murdered no-one.

I wonder, would you describe yourself as a Christian? If so, then this notion should not seem so absurd to you as you pretend.

No, you would not, believe me. It springs into the eye, then.

You presume to know how I will and will not think and act in a hypothetical scenario. I cannot guess whether that is just plain arrogance or intentional flame baiting.

Aramike

06-14-09, 02:13 PM

You seem to me to be suggesting that if I am able to prevent a murder by murdering the would-be murderer, but I don't do so, then I am responsible for the murderer's murder? In which case, I'd like to hear your logic on how I am now responsible for a murder that I did not commit, plan, or want.You expressely allowed a murder by ommission of action. Therefore you are morally responsible.As for the last part - killing in defense of your family - this seems to me to be another version of the sniper and the bomber and the million people, no? Anyway it's quite simple. If I kill the would-be murderer then I have murdered a person. If I don't then I have murdered no-one.You're confusing "murder" and "killing". I'd suggest looking the word "murder" up, as you would see that killing in defense is NOT murder, as it is neither a crime nor does it contain malicious aforethought.

So then, again, you'd be responsible for the murder by NOT killing to prevent the murder.

A tend to agree with Burke: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." As such. inaction would be equally morally culpable when the presense of action can prevent an evil. wonder, would you describe yourself as a Christian? If so, then this notion should not seem so absurd to you as you pretend.I am somewhere between agnostic and atheist, depending on the day.You presume to know how I will and will not think and act in a hypothetical scenario. I cannot guess whether that is just plain arrogance or intentional flame baiting. He presumes to know how a typical human being will respond, and I tend to agree with him.

Again, I refer to the concept of depravity. If you don't feel okay with killing a combatant who's about to slaughter a civilian family because your system of morality prevents the very prevention of evil, one must wonder why. To do so simply because of a personal, mental gratification in doing so is depravity, sorry to say.

Skybird

06-14-09, 02:19 PM

You presume to know how I will and will not think and act in a hypothetical scenario.

Let'S hope you never come into the situation where you will need to find out yourself.

And yes, I do claim that in certain situations and that certain experiences make people stop to prioritize their usual ways of doing and thinking. Whether you must see that as arrogant or not, I don't know, and honestly said I don't care. I've seen how people get hit by such things (not different by tendency like I got hit by themn, too), and after all we all share some basic similiarities that define us as humans, in good and bad.

Try to take the words of mine just as what they are. Don't bother with my suspected intentions or assumed characteristics.

onelifecrisis

06-14-09, 02:22 PM

You expressely allowed a murder by ommission of action. Therefore you are morally responsible.

How so? Where was my intent to have anyone die?

You're confusing "murder" and "killing".

More petty semantics. Swap the word "murder" for the word "kill" in my post and my point remains unchanged.

onelifecrisis

06-14-09, 02:26 PM

Let'S hope you never come into the situation where you will need to find out yourself.

And now you presume to know my past as well.

Skybird

06-14-09, 02:29 PM

onelifecrisis

06-14-09, 02:52 PM

When you, against better knowledge, allow circumstances in which the murderer can carry out his deed, then you have made possible the later deed

No I haven't. The deed was and is possible with and without my knowledge of it.

and asisted the murder

No I haven't. Assistance would involve proactivity.

in finding the needec chance to carry out his deed. You are not the only one responisble, and certainly the murderer does not become innocent at your cost, but still you share responsibility in the outcome of the situation.

This assumes that I have some sort of obligation to protect my fellow human beings from other human beings who would harm them, which is an interesting and related matter and touches, I think, on the notion of duty raised earlier in the thread.

Assuming for now that such a duty does exist, then in that case the example of someone trying to kill my wife (who presumably is not trying to kill him) is quite an easy one and I should try to kill him if it will save my wife... however, to bring this somewhat back on track, when it comes to soldiers fighting soldiers I see no moral grounds for the individual to take one side or the other in the general case. In fact, if I've understood the various arguments put forward on this, it would be a soldier's moral duty to defect to the other side if he believed that more lives (regardless of which nation they reside in) would be saved that way. But I imagine this rarely (if ever) happens.

(I hope this can bring us back to the original topic and the true motives of soldiers)

onelifecrisis

06-14-09, 03:03 PM

Assassin has a cloaking device, dagger, sapper, gun (ambassador or normal) and disquise kit.

Mercenary has a sniper rifle, Kukri knife, and an smg

Soldier has a rocket luancher, shovel and shotty.

I won't go into the scout, engie, heavy, demoman, pyro, or heavy

By the way, that made me LOL. :up::up:

Skybird

06-14-09, 05:58 PM

No I haven't. The deed was and is possible with and without my knowledge of it.

No I haven't. Assistance would involve proactivity.

Read again:

- When you,

- against better knowledge,

- allow circumstances in which the murderer can carry out his deed,

- then you have made possible the later deed,

- and assisted the murderer in finding the needed chance to carry out his deed.

You share responsibility, therefore, but you are not responsible all alone, though, since it is not you pulling the trigger.

Simple. Very.

Letum

06-14-09, 06:12 PM

onelifecrisis

06-14-09, 06:26 PM

@Skybird
Read again:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1117470&postcount=184

Aramike

06-14-09, 07:54 PM

How so? Where was my intent to have anyone die?Your intent was to allow a murder to occur because you are unable to reconcile the ethical difference between "murder" and "killing". Therefore you have made a choice (which defines a form of proactivity) to expressely allow an evil act, and as such has assisted the completion of that act.More petty semantics. Swap the word "murder" for the word "kill" in my post and my point remains unchanged. Umm, no, this is not "petty" semantics. The word "murder" and the word "killing" mean very different things, and can have a great bearing upon the ethics and morality of a given scenario.

If you don't want your points to be contested due to what you are calling "petty semantics", please just use the proper words to express your thoughts.

Aramike

06-14-09, 07:58 PM

Aramike

06-14-09, 08:03 PM

(I hope this can bring us back to the original topic and the true motives of soldiers)I think more people would be willing to do that had you not posted a :yawn: in response to the idea that duty and patriotism could be a motivation in the 14th post in this thread, which seemed to indicate that you were only concerned in discussing YOUR certain view regarding the motivation of soldiers.

antikristuseke

06-14-09, 08:47 PM

To be quite frank, duty and patriotism is the main motivator for the very few.

August

06-14-09, 10:19 PM

To be quite frank, duty and patriotism is the main motivator for the very few.

Maybe things have changed but during my time in the service (1977-84) duty, honor and love of country were by far the three main motivators for soldiers joining and reenlisting in the US Army.

After all we had no GI Bill, no enlistment bonuses and our pay was minimal. So what other reason could we have enlisted for if not for patriotism?

onelifecrisis

06-14-09, 10:22 PM

Your intent was to allow a murder to occur because you are unable to reconcile the ethical difference between "murder" and "killing".

<snip>

Umm, no, this is not "petty" semantics. The word "murder" and the word "killing" mean very different things, and can have a great bearing upon the ethics and morality of a given scenario.

If you don't want your points to be contested due to what you are calling "petty semantics", please just use the proper words to express your thoughts.

I looked up "murder" and it means an unlawful killing, as opposed to "killing" which of course means any killing lawful or otherwise. So you're right in saying that I used the wrong word. However, since since the killing in question would, as you know, be legal in your country and in mine, it is self-evident that "killing" is what I meant, so pointing it out is petty. Besides, you've already stated that the law has nothing to do with ethics and so the distinction is moot anyway.

I already pointed out (in the post you quoted) that I'm happy to change my statement to use the word "killing" instead of "murder". I assume you did read all of my post before hitting the quote button, yes? In which case, after taking the nonsense out of your reply, we are left with:

Your intent was to allow a murder to occur. Therefore you have made a choice (which defines a form of proactivity) to expressely allow an evil act, and as such has assisted the completion of that act.

This gave me pause for thought, and made me realise that the point I made about duty has three possibilities rather than two, those being: the duty to try to prevent harm by any means, the duty to try to prevent harm by non-harmful means only, and the lack of any such duty.

But I digress.

"Your intent was to allow a murder to occur"

No... unless the murderer was asking for my permission? In which case it's safe to say that I would deny it. But this next part is very interesting:

"a choice defines a form of proactivity"

This is a head-bender for me, so I'll let you do the hard work for me:

your argument faces a paradox which renders it existentially invalid: if you're saving the lives in Croatia, you'd not be saving lives in Zimbabwe. Because that violates logical reasonability and would create an infinate feedback loop preventing any and all morality, it just doesn't work.

Heh, thanks. :up:
Tis strange that you wouldn't discuss any of these things in PM, though. :hmmm:
By the way, do you realise that you just agreed with Letum? He wasn't saying he should go and spend his life trying to do as much good as possible. He was saying that SB's post implied that he should and was therefore nonsense.

Aramike

06-14-09, 11:02 PM

I looked up "murder" and it means an unlawful killing, as opposed to "killing" which of course means any killing lawful or otherwise. So you're right in saying that I used the wrong word. However, since since the killing in question would, as you know, be legal in your country and in mine, it is self-evident that "killing" is what I meant, so pointing it out is petty. Besides, you've already stated that the law has nothing to do with ethics and so the distinction is moot anyway.

I already pointed out (in the post you quoted) that I'm happy to change my statement to use the word "killing" instead of "murder". I assume you did read all of my post before hitting the quote button, yes? In which case, after taking the nonsense out of your reply, we are left with:Actually, I completely understood what you were saying in that post. However, I felt it entertaining to point out the "petty semantics" comment, as you seem to be constantly whining about inflammatory comments.This gave me pause for thought, and made me realise that the point I made about duty has three possibilities rather than two, those being: the duty to try to prevent harm by any means, the duty to try to prevent harm by non-harmful means only, and the lack of any such duty.

But I digress.We're not talking about a circumstance where the murder can be prevented through non-harmful action, so I don't think the point is valid."Your intent was to allow a murder to occur"

No... unless the murderer was asking for my permission? In which case it's safe to say that I would deny it.I disagree. Intent is not always premeditated by the person who's intent is in question. For instance, if someone were to throw a ball at you and you duck to miss it, you intended to duck to make the ball miss. More to the point, if you saw that person threw the ball at you and stood there while fully capable of dodging the ball, you intended upon allowing the ball to hit you.

Likewise, if you're in a situation where you're faced with a murderer threatening innocent lives, and you only possess a harmful solution to the problem but do not use it, you intended upon allowing the murder to occur.But this next part is very interesting:

"a choice defines a form of proactivity"

This is a head-bender for me, so I'll let you do the hard work for me:Huh? We can be cordial now? Cool. :rock:Heh, thanks. :up:
Tis strange that you wouldn't discuss any of these things in PM, though. :hmmm:I wouldn't mind discussing these things in PM, but that wasn't at all what we were discussing. We were just nitpicking at one another over trivialities (something I can be very good at but tire of quickly).By the way, do you realise that you just agreed with Letum? He wasn't saying he should go and spend his life trying to do as much good as possible. He was saying that SB's post implied that he should and was therefore nonsense. Indeed, I know what he was saying. But, I don't think that is what Skybird meant, and I know it isn't what I meant as the situation Letum posed is illogical to the argument.

The problem here is that the discussion is not focused. Before one can discuss whether or not being a soldier is moral, we must agree on what defines morality. For me, morality is defined through a subjective form of deontological ethics combined with logical causality. To apply that to my example, the murderer who's actively threatening another life forfeits his moral prerogatives by doing so. While ethics will dictate to others that the solution causing the least harm is PREFERRABLE, morality will ALSO dictate that resolving the situation is imperative. Therefore whatever the solution is, its morality is dictated by whether or not the MOST PREFERRABLE solution POSSIBLE is used.

Remember when you challenged my use of the term, "certainly" (which I still stand by)? The irony is that the argument that any harm caused is immoral is a statement of a certainty as well. I disagree with that because I find that ALLOWING harm by ommission of action is immoral, and therefore such a certainty would fall into that unresolvable feedback loop yet again, and render the argument pointless.

So, the point of contention becomes this: why do you believe that, in ALL cases, causing harm in order to prevent harm is immoral?

Aramike

06-15-09, 01:56 AM

To be quite frank, duty and patriotism is the main motivator for the very few.I missed this before, but I'm curious as to what you base this statement upon?

I suspect nothing, but I'm not surprised considering the source.

antikristuseke

06-15-09, 05:28 AM

Maybe things have changed but during my time in the service (1977-84) duty, honor and love of country were by far the three main motivators for soldiers joining and reenlisting in the US Army.

After all we had no GI Bill, no enlistment bonuses and our pay was minimal. So what other reason could we have enlisted for if not for patriotism?

Cant say about the american armed forces, but here in Estonia people sign up eiter because they have run out of options, are looking for adventure or really need te money.

I missed this before, but I'm curious as to what you base this statement upon?

I suspect nothing, but I'm not surprised considering the source.

My own experience in the armed forces. That being said, am currently signed up to do a tour of duty in Kosovo, but since I only made the reserve candidates list cant be sure yet if they take me or not.

CaptainHaplo

06-15-09, 06:23 AM

Legally speaking - if you know of a murder that is about to occur - and do not act in means sufficient to stop it (or at least with means sufficient to be held to have acted in good faith with a reasonable chance of success at stopping said murder) - then you are considered culpable and there are many convictions of people for what is called ACCESSORY to Murder.

If you know of one, and try to talk the person out of it - and fail - you did not do enough. If you called the cops before hand - either as soon as you learned of the plan or within time for them to stop it - your covered. If you knew yesterday but called the cops 5 minutes before the trigger was pulled and they could not get there - your culpable under the law.

The failure to act in the common good to prevent a murder is considered to be tacit approval and assistance to the murder act.

If you have no prior knowledge, then physically struggle with the murderer, are unsuccessful and then turn that person in as soon as possible, then you would be fine. If you see Joe loading his gun while drunk and talking about how he is going to go shoot his ex-wife - and you do not take action - or you take INSUFFICIENT action (within reason) - then you are morally and legally liable if he goes and kills his ex-wife.

If you cannot see where you have a moral and ethical duty to prevent a murder then there is no point in your original question - since a soldier wants to fight a war to end it, while an assassin wants to murder for money, and a merc wants to do a job to get paid.

Edit - to clarify - a soldier doesnt "want" to fight a war - but when it becomes necessary - then yes - they want to fight it - to gain its completion and return to peace. That is, at least, 98% or more of them I served with. You do have to occasional whack job - but they are easily removed from combat ops for the good of the platoon.

Skybird

06-15-09, 09:44 AM

That would make me responsible for road accidents in Croatia because I
haven't devoted my life to a road safety campaign there.
I could do that and it would save lives, but I haven't, even tho I know about it.

There is a infinite number of other things I haven't done that would prevent
murders, deaths, crime etc.

You might argue that I am only responsible if I fail to act to prevent a bad
deed that happens near to me, but that seams a little arbitrary.

there are reglious psotions that indeed see it like this. Or at least neutrally point out respnsibility, if not speaking of guilt.

Karma, for example.

Living is living in an endless context.

And we all live at the cost of people working their a$$ and lives off in the third world to make sure we get our cup of coffee in the morning, and that diamond in our golden ring.

These contexts cannot be escaped. That may be the reason why some religions speak of the need to not only stay away from doing harm, but to actively purify ourselves from the echoes of past negatives (by any form of superstitious technique or practice, for example).

Or consider another perspective. Many of you guys vote, and the leaders you voted for have allowed some for of military action or not, which may have been justified to prevent a bigger evil, or not. You helped to bring the decision makers into a psoition where they could make that decision. You share your individual ammount of responsibility.

Uncomfortable, isn't it. But who said that karma is gentle? Action, and reaction. Deciding, sending your choice into the world, causing consequences that return. That's what it is about. You can't escape it. And that is the ultimate justice. It's not about sin, it is about consequence. It is not about guilt, it is about responsibility.

Letum

06-15-09, 10:48 AM

Being responsible for an infinate ammount of evil means that I can't be more evil than I already am by ignoring a murder that happens near me.
Surely that is too much of a bullet for anyone to bite?

Skybird

06-15-09, 11:26 AM

Hm?

Aramike

06-15-09, 12:19 PM

My own experience in the armed forces. That being said, am currently signed up to do a tour of duty in Kosovo, but since I only made the reserve candidates list cant be sure yet if they take me or not. If that is the case, your experience is markedly different than mine, where the VAST majority of people seem to care about duty and honor, and use it as a motivation to join.

However, I tend to stay away from such statements as they are anecdotal at best and cannot be proven.

Let me ask you this: why do you think US military recruitment spiked immediately after 9/11? I'm pretty sure that it's not because of additional pay, more people felt the need to pay for college, etc.

onelifecrisis

06-16-09, 01:34 AM

I'm still struggling with this notion that I'm somehow partially responsible for a murder that someone else has committed just because I happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. One issue I have with that logic is that "intent to allow a death" is not the same as "intent to have a death occur in the first place". Another issue I have is that I don't see how the aquisition of knowledge can carry with it the aquisition of responsibility.

The example involving a ball being thrown at me, and me staying still if "intend to allow" it to hit me, doesn't help. If I wanted a ball to hit me I'd throw one at myself, or ask someone else to throw it. That's not the same as someone else throwing a ball at me and me allowing it to hit.

As a side note, it seems to me that it is the stance I'm refuting (rather than the stance I'm assuming) which leads to what you, Aramike, are calling an "infitite feedback loop". But you say otherwise?

Oh and then there's this:
By your logic if I happen to have a gun but don't use it then I'm partly responsible for the death, but if I have no gun then I'm not responsible? How does that compute? From that reasoning you could argue that I'm actually irresponsible for not carrying a gun, which means everyone should carry guns (which, interestingly, is the sort of thing some Americans would actually agree with).

Anyway I will have to think about all of this some more.

BTW, Haplo, the law has nothing to do with it, but...

If you cannot see where you have a moral and ethical duty to prevent a murder then there is no point in your original question.

Heh, nice one! :cool:

Huh? We can be cordial now? Cool. :rock:

:rock: :up:

Let me ask you this: why do you think US military recruitment spiked immediately after 9/11?

Revenge.

Aramike

06-16-09, 01:45 AM

The example involving a ball being thrown at me, and me staying still if "intend to allow" it to hit me, doesn't help. If I wanted a ball to hit me I'd throw one at myself, or ask someone else to throw it. That's not the same as someone else throwing a ball at me and me allowing it to hit.No, it is not the same. The difference is the amount of premeditation available.

So what constitutes is actually premeditated intent? Thinking about something for a split second? Thinking about it for 10 seconds? Thinking about if for 5 days?

What one "wants" and the options one actually faces are not necessarily the same thing. However, just because one is confronted with options they didn't elect does not mean that they aren't forced to actually choose.Oh and then there's this:
By your logic if I happen to have a gun but don't use it then I'm partly responsible for the death, but if I have no gun then I'm not responsible? How does that compute? It computes quite simply. If you have the gun, your options are quite different than if you do not have the gun. As such, unarmed you do not have the same option of action that the armed person has, therefore you are not culpable.

But this really isn't relevent, considering how the example under discussion is regarding the morality of the man who DOES have a gun killing the man who threatens others. I'd still like to hear your reasons why that would be immoral.From that reasoning you could argue that I'm actually irresponsible for not carrying a gun, which means everyone should carry guns (which, interestingly, is the sort of thing some Americans would actually agree with).Not at all, as we end up defaulting to logical reasonability in this case. Because there is no way for you to predict the necessity of the weapon, there is no moral imperative that you carry one, UNLESS your profession is specifically one in which you specifically are designed to intervene in such cases.

In other words, someone charged with protecting others against murderers should carry guns. Someone not with that charge faces no such moral imperative.Revenge. I do not disagree with this.

But I ask, how is "duty" and "honor" at odds with the concept of revenge?