Guilherme Zoldan said:
Hmmmm delicious delicious controvesy
I do find it funny that everyone countered my arguments by presenting exceptions. Guys, the fact some army men are benign public servicemen, doesnt change the main role of the institution.
All of these nice jobs could be done outside of the army, they are just a secondary function that the military gets when there are no foreigners they have to kill.
The problem i've always had with this argument is:
1) the fact that the main role of the military is to fight OTHER MILITARIES, whereas the overriding argument appears to be that it is to slaughter innocents for fun and profit.
2) the only reason to say that the military is terrible is to argue for getting rid of it, and getting rid of one military will not change that other nations have one, nor will it change the need for one.
3) your argument requires the assumption that the 'benign public servicemen' are the exception and that 'mass-murdering psycho' is the rule. Isn't the whole point of realistic war stories like, say 'All quiet on the western front', to show that even soldiers that kill are still people? IE, the actions they commit in the name of survival still can break them?
4) the biggest crime committed in a war is never anything the soldiers do. The worst atrocity in every war is that the war was started in the first place by greedy old men who would never fire a single shot. Yeah, I'm putting blame on politicians that don't give a crap, just like a psychotic doesn't give a crap about his victims. So sue me =P