American soldiers....

  • Thread starter Thread starter TorontoReign
  • Start date Start date
T

TorontoReign

Guest
Im just curious to see what the members of this forum think about American soldiers. Do you think they are naive, vulgar, brave, stupid....whatever.
 
What sort of question is this?

How can one say anything about the thousands of different people that work in the US military?

"Yeah, I think american soldiers are rude".

Sheesh. :roll:
 
Wooz, like this.
They might be bright, they might be honest and they might be brave, but it doesn't matter, cause they are fighting for the wrong side. :twisted:
 
Well people usually sterotype soldiers. Im wondering what people think. Do you think people who join the military are ______? That's what I am asking. I don't know what people think about us outside of the area I live in. Everyone here in Killeen (Fort Hood) thinks that soldiers are so brave, but then some people think they are hellraisers. On the other hand some people from other countries might think we are sadistic motherfuckers because of the Iraqi prisoner scandal. I know that the members of this forum are from all over and i want to know their opinions.

Theres no reason to be like that Wooz. Im just asking a question. Soldiers represent their fucking country and that means that they are their country. So let me rearrange the fucking question. What do you think of America and Americans in general?
 
There are lots of people that join the U.S. Military. A large group are kids who might have fucked up in the past or who just graduate high school and can't make it in college and don't want to get a day job. Others plan on going to college but dont have the money so they take advantage of the GI bill. Also there's a small group who are incredibly patriotic (their dad was a marine, his dad was a marine, ect ect..). The fact is the majority of the 'soldiers' are just kids who are capeable of anything.
 
El_Prez, I wouldn't say all of those cases are "incredible patriotism." There are pressures from within families to do such things.

There is no reason for Wooz not to be like that, TorontRayne. In either case, you are asking people for vague generalities.
 
The only generalization I'd make about US soldiers is that I wouldn't want my daughter dating one. I don't know if it's just my soldier friends or what, but they're near the last of the people I know that would make good boyfriends/husbands.
 
TorontRayne said:
Soldiers represent their fucking country and that means that they are their country. So let me rearrange the fucking question. What do you think of America and Americans in general?
Click to expand...

How odd...

Soldiers represent a country?

That means a country's reason to exist is purely to protect its citizens, wage war and kill people? How 16th century.

Last I checked, politicians represent their countries. Ambassadors, in the literal sense. And in the case of sad monarchies like the one I'm living in, the King/Queen. Sadly.
 
Soldiers represent they're country in the sense that they are the ones we see on television, acting out the will and interests of their country. When a soldier commits atrocities in Abu Ghraib or rapes a Okinawan schoolgirl, or cuts a gondola wire while showboating, that reflects on the country whether the politicians and monarchs want it to or not; there's nothing 16th century about it, its called reality.

But to answer the threads question I have the utmost respect for all American soldiers. When you consider how difficult their job is, how many places they're deployed and how seldom we see stories of bad things relative to the numbers deployed, I think they are doing a wonderful job at there mission. And of course there will be the gondola stories and atrocities, that comes with the territory. I think this because we don't hear about the yriad soldiers who routinely help civilians and people's to rebuild their lives and nations; remember the American naval groups who helped the Tsunami recovery? Neither do I, and thats the way it should be. Also, I blame the Pentagon and the tools in the White House for Abu Ghraib, not the soldiers.

Note, this does not mean I necessarily agree with the mission, but the soldiers do it, whether they like it or not, and that is something we can all be proud of. Hell, the only time I wouldn't be proud and respectful of our soldiers is if they didn't do what they were ordered to do.
 
Murdoch said:
Soldiers represent they're country in the sense that they are the ones we see on television, acting out the will and interests of their country. When a soldier commits atrocities in Abu Ghraib or rapes a Okinawan schoolgirl, or cuts a gondola wire while showboating, that reflects on the country whether the politicians and monarchs want it to or not; there's nothing 16th century about it, its called reality.
Click to expand...

Except that it isn't.

A country is responsible for the actions of its soldiers.

A soldier does not represent his country. What he states, unlike what the president or the premier states, is not what the country states. And that is what representation entails. Not just responsibility from the state towards what you've done, but all responsibility from the state to match what you said should happen. Representation.

Simple responsibility for atrocities does not equal representation.

Like I said, tres 16th century.
 
How can a soldier NOT be a representative of their country? They are what the citizens see when we are in their country. They think of us as American soldiers, and we are looked upon as a whole, as Americans. If there are several cases of American soldiers beating the fuck out of innocent civilians, but British soldiers are on the opposite side of the country rebuilding shit that WE fucked up, someone would make a generalized statement that American soldiers are shit, but British soldiers are great.
Soldiers are representatives of their fucking countries. We represent everything that our forefathers bled for, and very few fucking politicians can say that they fought for their damn country. Politicians SPEAK for the country.
 
I think we need to draw a distinction between representation as interpreted by a viewer and representation in an official capacity.
 
Kharn said:
Except that it isn't.

A country is responsible for the actions of its soldiers.

A soldier does not represent his country. What he states, unlike what the president or the premier states, is not what the country states. And that is what representation entails. Not just responsibility from the state towards what you've done, but all responsibility from the state to match what you said should happen. Representation.

Simple responsibility for atrocities does not equal representation.

Like I said, tres 16th century.
Click to expand...

Sure Kharn, whatever. You stay up in your ivory tower, while the rest of us (especially those of us who's country's have a military to speak of) will stay down here in the real world.

In a philosophical sense, you are right. But because none of us, save you perhaps, live in the Land of Philosophy, your take is marginalized, being irrelevent to the real world.

Besides, if your take was the way it is then soldiers and their actions would not be held accountable, because they are not representing their country. This is not the case, which further illustrates the point that soldiers are indeed representing their country.
 
Thank you Murdoch. The soldiers who have abused prisoners and posed with them naked have all been sent to fucking Levinworth. They might not get out for a long time. The country just took a blow to the balls. America didn't get in trouble.... just frowned upon because of their soldiers actions.
 
I want to meet people of a new, interesting culture, and kill them. I want to be the first kid on my block with a confirmed kill.

Seriously though, I do want to experience combat, though I'm scared shitless at the same time. On a lighter side, I want to make personal differences in people's lives, I'm too fucking young to want to make a world's difference. I want to be the guy who helps rebuild a wartorn school's playground, but I don't want to do it without my handy rifle. You know how it is with typical teens and their wandering, lost minds. Fuck, I just graduated damnit.
 
Murdoch said:
Sure Kharn, whatever. You stay up in your ivory tower, while the rest of us (especially those of us who's country's have a military to speak of) will stay down here in the real world.

In a philosophical sense, you are right. But because none of us, save you perhaps, live in the Land of Philosophy, your take is marginalized, being irrelevent to the real world.
Click to expand...

I've seen this different in outlook between Western Europeans and Americans before. It took us millenia of constant bloodshed topped with a horrible world war, but I think by this point we figured out that while military matters are to be respected, they are not to be revered. To answer you in the same tone as you choose to address me in; to us your attitude towards the army is barbaric at best.

By the way; talking down to me won't make you right, I'm afraid.

Murdoch said:
Besides, if your take was the way it is then soldiers and their actions would not be held accountable, because they are not representing their country. This is not the case, which further illustrates the point that soldiers are indeed representing their country.
Click to expand...

The fact that the country takes responsibility for their actions is basically meaningless. A country with a non-privatized train line takes responsibility for the behaviour of the ticket-salesmen too. Does that mean I am to take these ticket-salesmen as representatives of the country? Yes, you say. No, I say.

In the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, representation is defined as "The state or condition of serving as an official delegate, agent, or spokesperson." or possible in this context "A body of legislators that serve on behalf of a constituency."

There is a distinction between being a representative of a country and the country having a responsibility for your actions, because the first type, representation, moves both ways, as you serve as an official delegate or the like.

What you're trying to say, I think, is that military actions (not the military as a body, note) are often used by people to make value judgement about the country or rather the government. The government is responsible, though, which is why the government is representative and the military at most indirectly so through a by-way.

TorontRayne; you certainly illustrated the diversity of the word "fuck". I thank you for this wonderful lesson in English philology.
 
Kharn, there is an exceedingly vague description abotu what constitutes representation for a country. While yes, the elected officials and appointed diplomats represent the country in an official sense, the definition of 'influence' is wildly fluctuation-prone regarding the actions of even singular people. It seems absolute folly to say that only officials represent the country to the rest of the world: your actions in whatever view end up influencing the beliefs of others about your particular background and country.

How in this way is the military any less a representation of a government than politicians, Kharn? Military units are a tool of foreign diplomacy as much as actual diplomats are. THe Prsident here is the Commander in Chief, and thus sets in a roundabout way military policy. Codes of conduct are devised in order to help articulate the actual responsibilities of these subordinates to the overall objective the country involved wants to see fulfilled. When military units are deployed, they are often the first actual glimpse people have of the actions of the country in a direct sense. I think that pretty clearly makes them 'representatives' of the country they belong to. As soldiers, wearing that flag patch, wearing those uniforms, they are fully expected to act precisely according to doctrine. I myself recieved lectures way back when that I was not allowed BY LAW and convention to wear the military uniform to any political meeting whatsoever. To do so would make me an unwarranted 'representative' of what may seem to some as military support or policy for a particular group or candidate.

Then again, there is the theory in international relations of the existence of 'elites' (not really a theory so much as fact). Influence is garnered from a vast array of resources and people, not limited to just the government alone. The government might perhaps seek to absorb said elites into itself (to bolster its own image) but regardless influence is not found in civil duty alone, Kharn.
 
I think we've found another aspect that separates Europe from the US. Anyone working fro the goverment, from the pm/president to the janitor is a representative of that government to me. That includes arguments about trains (wtf?).

Any other definition is a road downwhich you can allow your government to not to held accountable for its actions.

And I only talk down to people when I know I'm right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top