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

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

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]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

[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]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

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]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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)

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

@Skybird:

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by Letum

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]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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]

Originally Posted by Letum

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]

Originally Posted by Letum

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]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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]

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

[CaptainHaplo]

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]

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]

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.