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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

Wouldn't be any use.

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:
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]

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.

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

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...

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.

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.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.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. 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.