Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dn013)
    I differ from you in that I would put the blame on the government for that. The soldiers were not acting on the governments orders, parliament voted to go to war on both occasions so what right does a soldier have to not carry out the act of a democratically elected government.
    Or more what right should the soldier have?
    On the one hand if every soldier chose to act in a mutinous way similar to/the same as that of a civilian acting in civil disobediance, what would happen to the military?
    On the other hand if one does wish to put themselves in that position then what happens to the physical body whilst carrying out orders, and the mental entity whilst those orders are carried out, surely lies partly if not wholey on that persons responciblity to others and to him or her self.

    my question: can you ever take away someones responcibility and if you can, what are the rules for it? I mean if you get drunk are you no longer in control of your actions? are you partly in control? are you fully in control, if you knowingly got drunk and put yourself in that compromising position, how do you shift the responcibility of your actions from you and onto someone/something else?
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Rule Britannia)
    They do make a sacrifice but that does not detract from the fact they are paid killers taking orders from downing street.
    Different to soldiers during the First and Second World War how?

    (I'm certainly not detracting from the immense sacrifice made by all soldiers but that statement was just ridiculous.)
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .ACS.)
    I've no idea, to be honest. It's shameful. People are giving up their lives for a tuppence all in the name of their country and to protect us and we couldn't care less. Obviously there are exceptions, but Britain is for the most part very apathetic towards their military personnel and in some cases very anti.

    Yes, we're in a war that most disagree with. It's not the fault of the soldiers who are losing their lives. It's the government, a government the public voted in no less.

    It's time Britain woke up and realised that our armed forces are worth having and deserve more respect. It's not about being jingoistic, but about being reasonable. Sure, other Western countries may be more apathetic than America, but no country shows the disrespect for our soldiers that the average Briton shows.

    See this is another problem I have with the thread, respect. Is respect a way of thinking? a way of acting? what is it? It seems entirely subjective and perhaps my respect is different from your respect. But we talk in absoultes.

    What's more, what is it to be the average Briton? Or if you're going by a number rather than a type of person how many people have been asked, in detail, what they find to be respect, and if they respect the soldiers because they are soldiers? Or for that matter if they hold a view of disrespect (again that needing to be defined) because the soldiers are soldiers?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    my friend said they were unpaid workers
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Biggles)
    Different to soldiers during the First and Second World War how?

    (I'm certainly not detracting from the immense sacrifice made by all soldiers but that statement was just ridiculous.)
    The problem in the second world war was the threat of political change occurring should we be defeated.

    War on terrorism should be the remit of the police and MI5 - not the military.

    They are different in the national consequences of the conflict. They are not fighting for our defence any more then attacking Somalia in part of a war on murder - "because a lot of murders go on over there and we don't like murders happening over here".

    It's not a war for the British people. It is merely an exercise in political ends - for that British soldiers (all of whom have now signed up or stayed on after the war in Afghanistan started) should currently be viewed as nothing more then paid killers.

    The real heroes - who I deeply respect - are buried in WW II monuments; they're not strewn across the fields of Afghanistan.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by dn013)
    I differ from you in that I would put the blame on the government for that. The soldiers were not acting on the governments orders, parliament voted to go to war on both occasions so what right does a soldier have to not carry out the act of a democratically elected government.
    The soldier chose to be a soldier, and the whole Nuremburg trials kinda settled "just following orders" as a potential defence for immoral activity. Doing what is right has to come before doing what the representatives of the majority want.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't believe in any war, and the soldiers choose to join the forces. Why do you think I should have more respect for people who choose to die fighting in a war I don't believe in than any other people that die?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by numb3rb0y)
    The soldier chose to be a soldier, and the whole Nuremburg trials kinda settled "just following orders" as a potential defence for immoral activity. Doing what is right has to come before doing what the representatives of the majority want.
    There is absolutely no moral equivalence between the holocaust and Afghanistan. Comparing the two is naive and insulting. One was the mass execution of 10 million people, with the intent to eradicate unwanted minorities in society, the other is a war to eliminate a terrorist organization that has attacked both Britain and the US in the past and is intent on doing more damage.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dn013)
    There is absolutely no moral equivalence between the holocaust and Afghanistan. Comparing the two is naive and insulting. One was the mass execution of 10 million people, with the intent to eradicate unwanted minorities in society, the other is a war to eliminate a terrorist organization that has attacked both Britain and the US in the past and is intent on doing more damage.
    So you think the war on terrorism is a good thing?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    So you think the war on terrorism is a good thing?
    I support the war in Afghanistan - even if I didn't support it I would still admit that there is absolutely no moral equivalence between the Holocaust and the current war our soldiers our in - NONE. And saying that there is moral equivalency is just belittling the Holocaust.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dn013)
    I support the war in Afghanistan - even if I didn't support it I would still admit that there is absolutely no moral equivalence between the Holocaust and the current war our soldiers our in - NONE. And saying that there is moral equivalency is just belittling the Holocaust.

    Well I stand by what I usually say, which is that everyones morals are subjective. What about the war on Iraq?

    And to ask a little more directly...
    ...do you support the war on terrorism?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Well I stand by what I usually say, which is that everyones morals are subjective. What about the war on Iraq?

    And to ask a little more directly...
    ...do you support the war on terrorism?
    There were two mistakes made with Iraq:

    1) We should not have gone in.
    2) Once we chose to go in we should have gone in with more numbers so that the civil war would not have sparked off in 04.

    Therefore I did neither supported the strategy nor the tactics. But again comparing Iraq to the Holocaust is an utter, despicable joke - lets leave it at that.

    I do not think there can ever be a 'War on Terrorism,' therefore I do not support that term. I do support the war on Al Qaeda, and I do think that going into Afghanistan was the right thing to do, and that our troops are doing the right thing by being in Afghanistan right now. I do not think that the USA could allow anybody to attack it in the way Al Qaeda did in 01 without making sure that everyone knowing who is the world superpower. At the end of the day, if America had not gone into Afghanistan there would be more complaints and questions about America's response to 9/11 than the complaints America has received about its actions since 9/11 - Iraq included.

    Do you mind if I ask about yourself?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by flugestuge)
    Speak for yourself.
    :confused:

    But most people do not disrespect members of the armed forces.

    A few idiots who get a lot of attention don't make up the majority.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DirtyHarry)
    :confused:


    A few idiots who get a lot of attention don't make up the majority.
    You are correct, but unfortunately he is one of the guys I put in bold.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    So you think the war on terrorism is a good thing?
    What should we do? Just sit back and do nothing?
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by dn013)
    There is absolutely no moral equivalence between the holocaust and Afghanistan. Comparing the two is naive and insulting. One was the mass execution of 10 million people, with the intent to eradicate unwanted minorities in society, the other is a war to eliminate a terrorist organization that has attacked both Britain and the US in the past and is intent on doing more damage.
    I never said the level of wrong was similar, but rather the basic principle that following orders is not a reasonable justification for committing wrongs applies in both cases. If people in the Wehrmacht couldn't use it to excuse their actions, why can people in the British military? Keep in mind it wasn't just limited to the Nuremburg trials; US soldiers, for example, are bound to the Constitution above any other authority, and they could theoretically be tried for following an order from the President himself to the letter if it was in contravention of Constitutional law or natural justice. Not saying it would happen, but it's certainly a recognised modern principle of military and international jurisprudence.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by numb3rb0y)
    I never said the level of wrong was similar, but rather the basic principle that following orders is not a reasonable justification for committing wrongs applies in both cases. If people in the Wehrmacht couldn't use it to excuse their actions, why can people in the British military?
    Because german concentration camp guards intentionally killed civilians through putting their victims into gas chambers, through shooting them, and through starvation - British soldiers on the other hand are not targetting, and have never targeted, civilians in Afghanistan.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by dn013)
    Because german concentration camp guards intentionally killed civilians through putting their victims into gas chambers, through shooting them, and through starvation - British soldiers on the other hand are not targetting, and have never targeted, civilians in Afghanistan.
    So at what point exactly does following orders cease to be an acceptable defence?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by numb3rb0y)
    So at what point exactly does following orders cease to be an acceptable defence?
    When they go beyond the acceptable Rules of Engagement.

    As in, kill these 100 civilians in order to prove a point.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i dont think people generally disrespect soliders but are more unaware of what they are actually doing because the fighting is so far away.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.