Tiassa's concept of the soldier: John Stewart Mill's concept of the soldier: As for me, I suggest that a true soldier (as opposed to a civilian thug with a gun such as we saw in Rwanda) is one who places more value on the lives of his or her fellow citizens than he/she does on his/her own. A soldier volunteers to stand between the thugs and the ones who would be their innocent victims. Yes, I have an idealised vision of what it means to be a soldier. However, as in most real-world applications of principles, the ideal is corrupted. Throughout history, armies have been filled with thugs here and there, driven by immoral politicians and merchants, and involved in atrocious acts of barbarism. The politicians and uniformed goons who organised, authorised, and performed the nuclear weapon attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I don't call them soldiers. In an ideal world, a soldier is part of a society's defensive mechanism. Plato envisioned soldiers as guardians, as do I. But soldiers are driven by civilians, by politicians and merchants, and so are not what - in my opinion - they should be. In response to Tiassa, I say a true soldier does care for the cause, and that cause is the protection of innocents. However, unfortunately, either the world does not allow many the luxury of living by their ideals, or most are too weak to do so in the world they are given. Particularly for those of you who have served or are serving now, what is your concept of the soldier?
adam solders MUST be guided by the will of the people the other way is a millatry dictatorship and iraq, pakistan ect ideals unfortunatly dont work so that fact must be factored into the system, to give a group of people the might with no safe guard (ie the vote) is ASKING for abuse now we could vote for the head genral but what does he know about health and if we are voting what chance is there we will get someone who even knows about tactics?
Correct! Soldiers shouldn't attempt to run countries and politicians shouldn't attempt to run battles. Cheers, Ron (ex-Major, UK Army).
http://www.emory.edu/UDR/BLUMENTHAL/Linn.html http://www.oz.net/~vvawai/CtC/ http://203.115.21.154/news/policystatements/3rd Oct 2000_Hon. Lakshman Kadirgarmar.html http://www4.gu.edu.au/ext/civics/cv02/mod03/cv02m03t01.htm
so we finally agree on something adam! military rule with its tradition of honor and duty is far better than having subhuman civilians with their corrupt ideas govern us.
Umm... ask any number of militarily ruled nations what they think of that idea, Spookz. Or, some like Indonesia where the civilian government is unduly influenced by them. Supporting rule by an "ideal" military is not really any different from asking for rule by an "ideal" civilian government.
my dear marquis adam did not say that. i am insinuating he did. perhaps he does believe it. i doubt if he can come out and say it tho. if he does, it is party time! y know, its like.....sly dig? fanning the flames? bait? sarcasm? words in his mouth? shit ike that. btw are my politics that ambiguous? for the record my politics lean towards the lenin/lennonist persuasion Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
*shrugs* oops. And regarding the Lenin-ish view... everyone has their down side Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! *edit - sp.
Actually Xev, I caught myself using Spookz' spelling of Leninism, And for a brief moment wondered if he was as follower of John Lennon's political theories. So bugger off, insolent wench Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Spookz, u must be knowing rogue armies.. in some countries.. without any tradition of honor and self serving. besides, power corrupts even the finest Army.
Is it that power corrupts or that a position of power attracts the corrupt? Like a moth to a flame, the corrupt seek it and will gain it eventually, for the good man requires no such aspirations.
There is no such thing as "Military Utopia". in realworld can u show any military ruler who had no aspiration and honest (those type would never opt for power or even if they capture power out of patriotism they would never remain in power without handing over the power to civilians.. ) before coming to power and stayed that way while ruling...
Oh, I forgot. Yes Spookz, your politics were a little muddy to me... I remember you posting a quote from Ayn Rand somewhere and most lefties wouldn't have a bar of her.
they are crazy if they want to run out on the battel field and die. it sounds like they dont care about thar familysPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Back toward the topic... I'm not so much interested in military governments, as peoples' opinions of soldiers.
Power only corrupts the corrupted. Most of the most creative and origional people in history have power on a high tier on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. As for a military government, they don't historically seem to work very well.