What's the difference between a soldier, an assassin, and a mercenary? - Page 7

onelifecrisis · 06-11-09, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letum

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.

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.

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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

Thanks for the lecture dad!

Tasteless sarcasm aside, it seems that buried in your post is the point that the soldiers are not making an immoral decision by signing up. Rather, they are giving (military) power to their government and trusting their government to use that power morally. Assuming that there is such a thing as the moral use of military power, what makes you think that a government will use military power only (or even mostly) for those purposes? That would seem to me to be a leap of faith that flies in the face of all historical precedents.

onelifecrisis · 06-12-09, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

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?

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

06-11-09, 07:03 PM	#95
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,405 Downloads: 31 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

06-12-09, 06:21 AM	#97
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,405 Downloads: 31 Uploads: 0	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..... __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

06-12-09, 08:16 AM	#102
GoldenRivet Subsim Aviator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 8,729 Downloads: 146 Uploads: 0	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. __________________

06-12-09, 08:19 AM	#103
onelifecrisis Maverick Modder Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: England Posts: 3,895 Downloads: 65 Uploads: 3	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? __________________ Freedom of speech - priceless. For everything else there's Mastercard.

06-12-09, 09:13 AM	#105
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,819 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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 __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

06-11-09, 11:56 PM	#96
Aramike Ocean Warrior Best of SUBSIM Chairman Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 3,207 Downloads: 59 Uploads: 0	Haplo - you hit the nail square on the head.