Why do people hate the army?

[generals3]

But that would entirely defeat the purpose of an army. There is a difference between a soldier and a (wom)man with a gun. A (wom)man with a gun can make moral judgements and therefor take full responsibility for (her)his actions while a soldier cannot. A soldier should only be held accountable for decisions (s)he makes on his own (like going on a murdering spree for fun, disobeying orders, etc.).

It's the same as cops actually. A cop has to uphold the law regardless of how f*cked up the law is. He's also a political tool just like a soldier.

It doesn't defeat the purpose of the army unless perhaps you misunderstood me. I am saying that they cannot cede moral responsibility. They do lose much ability to make their own judgements, but I hold they are still fully responsible for what they do morally. Why? Because they agreed to follow orders.

And sure the cop has to uphold the law regardless, that does not mean he isn't responsible for it because he signed up for a job where he had to uphold the law regardless. It's pretty much impossible to give up responsibility because in trying to do so you are responsible for accepting another's orders making you responsible nonetheless.

But there lies the issue if you ask me. How can you hold someone who lost any ability to make his own judgement responsible for his acts?

You could judge him for being a soldier, but i don't think judging the acts he did as a soldier is appropriate.

And you must also keep in mind that times change, making the moral validity of certain actions variable but it also means the purpose of an army can change. An army could hold the moral high ground and than be asked to commit atrocities forcing soldiers who joined a "good" army to commit "evil". You never know what you sign up for except "your country". And i feel that is exactly the only thing you can judge a soldier on. Either you think fighting for your country is right or wrong. The How, when, why, who & what are all things that are decided by the leadership and therefor the responsibility of that falls on them.

 

[manic_depressive13]

There is no point in being a cop

What you are saying here is that you would prefer a country without any laws. Because, if you have laws you need law keepers, which is per definition what cops are.How would you see such a country? Nothing of your comfortable life would be possible as all would be about pure survival regardless of the costs to others. That is no world I would want to live in. Technically speaking, that would be pre-stoneage and even then it can be argued groups had certain rules and laws (like not killing each other).

You think that getting rid of the police force would set us back to before the paleolithic period? You think that dissolving an institution which only came to be considered desirable within the last few hundred years would cause human civilisation to regress 150 000 years?

Oh no, that's serious.

 

[renegade7]

Because people associate the greater ideas behind the decisions that drive military actions with the soldiers. It's like they just assume that the US Army invaded Iraq because the soldiers wanted to.

 

[logicisnotdead]

An amusing thread, largely due to the overwhelming preponderance of rabid anti military sentiment from people who accuse the military of being mindless killers or mere "tools of government". As a serving military member this is a constant feature of any attempt to have a measured, logical debate with anyone opposed to the military. There is a seeming inability amongst the anti military lobby to ever consider that they may have swallowed a little too much media spin as gospel, and a willingness to assume anyone in uniform must struggle to even spell university, let alone attend one.

Amazingly enough there are checks and balances in place to ensure the people who defend your freedom are not psychotic killers and degenerate rapists. Sadly, like the checks and balances in any large organisation, or society as a whole, they fail occasionally. Using these failures as examples of the entire military being a degenerate and psychotic organisation is merely the basing of an argument upon a logical fallacy, and therefore not worthy of response.

 

[gibbles545]

I personally have nothing against soldiers or the army themselves, I normally take issue with the wars they are in if I believe they are not for the correct causes. I take more Issue with those who command armies, the various nation leaders, for starting wars that I do not agree with and then dragging soldiers into it who by and large don't get a say in the matter of where they are deployed and who they fight.

Like someone mentioned earlier, people are often against or for armies depending on current trends and the realities of war in the era. So basicly not against armies themselves but i take issue with how they can be used, which some people who are maybe less informed can take to mean that armies themselves are bad. Which isn't strictly true.

 

[Frission]

Oh boy.

http://forums.watchuseek.com/attachments/f20/712955d1337432645-i-hate-omega-part-two-necro.jpg

This possibly couldn't go wrong. The page full of ghosts are only here to welcome you.

 

[the clockmaker]

I don't agree with the idea of being conditioned to obey without question. I think it teaches diminished responsibility.

Soldiers aren't taught that, it is not effective militarily and leads to a greater chance of atrocities, which, shock and horror, the military does not actually want.