The most badass mofos around

SuAside said:
Kahgan said:
The very concept of handing your life and abilities over to someone else to use as they see fit is not very heroic.
actually, that is quite often the core of heroism...

handing over your own life, making a total commitment to something and paying the price for it.
like a fireman running into a burning building that is near collapsing to save a child. he hands over his own life to fate, makes a total commitment to protecting all members of society and performs a heroic deed.

now, as said, i don't think all soldiers are heroes. not at all even, but what you just said struck me as quite funny.

Ah, but you miss my point, to put it this way, alot of the people in the Nürnberg trials claimed to just be following orders, but in my eyes they were still responsible for their actions. By handing over your life and abilities I don't mean sacrificing your life for a greater good but allowing yourself to be a tool that can be used for either good or bad. A soldier is by definition just a tool, they have litle or no say in what actions they are to perform, and soldiers go through training to get used to following orders by instinct. It may be effective in the art of waging war, but there is nothing heroic about it, in fact, I find it pretty pathetic and weak.

(btw I understand you don't see all soldiers as heroes, I'm just making a general point if you get me...)

Just a slight step back to the original post, I really liked the scottish guy with the claymore, that was a true badass :D: .
 
ForCV: Ah well I never bothered with little badges, grades and such.

Belts are for holding up trousers. In a deep zen sense. :lol:
 
Kahgan said:
Ah, but you miss my point, to put it this way, alot of the people in the Nürnberg trials claimed to just be following orders, but in my eyes they were still responsible for their actions. By handing over your life and abilities I don't mean sacrificing your life for a greater good but allowing yourself to be a tool that can be used for either good or bad. A soldier is by definition just a tool, they have litle or no say in what actions they are to perform, and soldiers go through training to get used to following orders by instinct. It may be effective in the art of waging war, but there is nothing heroic about it, in fact, I find it pretty pathetic and weak.

(btw I understand you don't see all soldiers as heroes, I'm just making a general point if you get me...)

Just a slight step back to the original post, I really liked the scottish guy with the claymore, that was a true badass :D: .

***The following comment will be referring to some soldiers but not all soldiers.***

My friend, people kill and die in the war. You can't be a "tool" that won't die in a war, not all soldier can be the invincible Rambo that happily get out of a war in one piece.

Once you joined the army, you are expected to either kill or die for your country, countrymen or some cause that you supported. You can't do a thing as a soldier if you're not ready to risk your life. Sacrifice wont assure victory, but no victory can be achieved without any sacrifice.

The willingness of the soldier to give up their normal life and serve to protect the lives of their countrymen are considered as an act of Heroism. They could have living a better life but NO, they gave that up so that you can live the life you wanted to. So go and live a meaningful live and always remember you have the privilege of living a good life thanks to the soldier that protect you.

I frowned upon the way you describe soldier as mindless creep that blindly follow order and die executing the orders. Soldier expected themselves to obey the order since the day they gave up their normal life to join the army.

An army wont be functional if every soldier always questioned about the orders they received. I wonder how D-day will turn out to be if the Allied soldier questioned and disobey the orders of assaulting the supposed invincible Atlantic Wall because they afraid to die or doubt the effectiveness of the plan. Always respect the soldier that risk their life obeying and executing orders that maybe effective or ineffective for the sake of their countrymen.

While you can argue about no need to sacrifice lives etc etc etc, but note that there are people that willing to sacrifice their lives either for a good or a bad cause. Heck, maybe someday there will be enemy that have soldiers that willing to sacrifice their lives will trample your ass thanks to your soldiers' afraid-to-die mentality whom suppose to protect you with their lives..
 
JunWisewar said:
My friend, people kill and die in the war. You can't be a "tool" that won't die in a war, not all soldier can be the invincible Rambo that happily get out of a war in one piece.

Once you joined the army, you are expected to either kill or die for your country, countrymen or some cause that you supported. You can't do a thing as a soldier if you're not ready to risk your life. Sacrifice wont assure victory, but no victory can be achieved without any sacrifice.

Hence joining the army in the first place should be avoided, in times of war there are plenty of times to fight and die for what you believe in, and best of all, you choose YOURSELF who to fight and kill and when to risk your life. As a soldier you are willingly giving up your own integrity an acting merely as a tool, and that is pathetic.

The willingness of the soldier to give up their normal life and serve to protect the lives of their countrymen are considered as an act of Heroism. They could have living a better life but NO, they gave that up so that you can live the life you wanted to. So go and live a meaningful live and always remember you have the privilege of living a good life thanks to the soldier that protect you.

Soldiers are used just as much (if not more) in agression as in defence. They aren't giving up anything but they're freedom, and someone who willingly gives up their freedom is in my eyes worthless.
And please don't tell me that they are protecting me, Norway hasen't been anywhere near war since the early 1940's, and I have myself to thank for my good life, I would have made the best of it under any circumstances.

I frowned upon the way you describe soldier as mindless creep that blindly follow order and die executing the orders. Soldier expected themselves to obey the order since the day they gave up their normal life to join the army.

You frown upon the way I describe soldiers, however you describe them just the same way, only in more flattering words?

An army wont be functional if every soldier always questioned about the orders they received. I wonder how D-day will turn out to be if the Allied soldier questioned and disobey the orders of assaulting the supposed invincible Atlantic Wall because they afraid to die or doubt the effectiveness of the plan. Always respect the soldier that risk their life obeying and executing orders that maybe effective or ineffective for the sake of their countrymen.

Hitlers war machine was just about the most effective army modern history has seen, but does that make it something to strive for? How about the roman empire? Pretty effective that too, but was it morally good?

While you can argue about no need to sacrifice lives etc etc etc, but note that there are people that willing to sacrifice their lives either for a good or a bad cause. Heck, maybe someday there will be enemy that have soldiers that willing to sacrifice their lives will trample your ass thanks to your soldiers' afraid-to-die mentality whom suppose to protect you with their lives..

I'm not a pacifist, I would fight with any means to protect myself and my loved ones, that doesn't mean I need to become a slave in a system that can use me for causes I do not support.

DexterMorgan said:

I agree, I see this as a good example of someone going against the flow and doing what he thinks is right by his own definition.

(and the massacre in itself is a prime example of the opposite)
 
JunWisewar said:
...
***The following comment will be referring to some soldiers but not all soldiers.***

My friend, people kill and die in the war. You can't be a "tool" that won't die in a war, not all soldier can be the invincible Rambo that happily get out of a war in one piece.

Once you joined the army, you are expected to either kill or die for your country, countrymen or some cause that you supported. You can't do a thing as a soldier if you're not ready to risk your life. Sacrifice wont assure victory, but no victory can be achieved without any sacrifice.

The willingness of the soldier to give up their normal life and serve to protect the lives of their countrymen are considered as an act of Heroism ...
The question is by which standarts. There are a lot of definitions considering it, particulary about heroism and heros in general.

Quite a lot of people join the military for the money, cause they lack any perspective and future. It has a reason why so many recruitment is done in socially deprived areas. And many of them do not really care about to either save, protect or do anything one would usualy conect with a noble warrior or heroism. A soldier is a human first a fighter later. So there are many definitions of heroic actions, joining the militay is not what I see as heroism. Even if it means that you give up parts of your life or individuality and protection you usualy have. Particularly when you know before you already join what they expect from you, for example "maybe" killing people.

This actualy is in my eyes a better example of a soldier beeing a "hero".
DexterMorgan said:




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radwaster said:
ForCV: Ah well I never bothered with little badges, grades and such.

Belts are for holding up trousers. In a deep zen sense. :lol:
haha, you know thats what my trainer always says as well. My hope is to one day get in the same situation though ! :mrgreen:
 
Crni Vuk:

Regarding Karma, if you kill not wanting to (no other choice), but in defence of yourself and/or others (well lets suppose you could have all the facts and it was indeed a selfish act of desperation), that supposedly gives you a "good" karma, because after all it was a "good" deed.

If a soldier kills to protect his freedom and the freedom of millions others (like allies vs nazi) isn’t he doing a good deed?

After all there are no absolute morals. If the gestapo in nazi german asked you if you were hidding jews, and lets say you were, lying would be a bad action? (check Peter singer, Pratical Ethics)

Although in all societies in all the ages (even in the natives of Amazonia jungle to the esquimos) lying is considered to be a bad action (as a moral pillar). Kant explains why this happens in a very fun way.

Karma says good deeds generate more good deeds and so on, and what "goes around comes around", so if he brings human decency/freedom/happiness/"good in general" to others (lets say the jews), then he gets paid back by karma with "good in general" also...

Right? im sorry, not very familiar with Buddhism, but i know that the more recent sees pain as necessary to grow and to achieve nirvana (no longer thinking that extreme happiness and the nullification of all aspects of pain are the path to nirvana).

Kind of like Freud with sexuality and then "sorrow" and the death instinct (sorry don’t know the technical terms in english).

.Eros and thanatos, ring a bell? :) (i really find it so similar to the evolution of buddhism)
 
you somewhat mention many different things, that would be almost enough for a own threat (like Freud and his views for example). I think it would be eventualy better to stay a bit focused. I am not a expert when it comes to Buddhism, so I can not say in which way it really relates to other forms of philosophies that you mentioned. I just have for it a much higher interest compared to christian views which seem to me at least to simple.

But considering the "nazi vs allies" "good vs bad" thinking etc. Again, it is a very simple view and construct. Things are not that simple, almost never. People like John Rabe prove pretty well that a black vs white thinking will not lead to a satisfying result. And he was not the only person. I doubt that most soldiers in World War 2 had the idea to fight for the best of humanity. Makes them worse humans? I dont think so.

As said a few times now, I never said what soldiers do is completely to negate. I just dont see them as heros or what they do as heroic. Not when it comes to the usual tasks of a soldier. Anything beyond that, yes that I see as heroic actions (like Hugh Thompson for example).
 
Hence joining the army in the first place should be avoided, in times of war there are plenty of times to fight and die for what you believe in, and best of all, you choose YOURSELF who to fight and kill and when to risk your life. As a soldier you are willingly giving up your own integrity an acting merely as a tool, and that is pathetic.

One Chinese saying is "Maintaining an army for thousand days, employ the army for a brief moment." When the hard times comes, you wouldn't want to drag ill-equipped and poorly trained civilian and press them into service to defend themselves. You want an army that stand ready ,well trained and well equipped to do the job of defending the nation.

Like it or not, while you might detest the idea of an army, there are some people that won't hesitate to form an army and poised to rob you of your wealth, land etc etc.Prime example is Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan at WWII. It's not paranoia, greed can influence human to do a lot of nasty things.

Soldiers are used just as much (if not more) in agression as in defence. They aren't giving up anything but they're freedom, and someone who willingly gives up their freedom is in my eyes worthless.

Ever heard about "Freedom is everything but free"? So you also despise some soldiers that defend people's freedom? Without standing army, don't ever bother about freedom. Your nation are expansive and aggressive nation's breakfast.

I'm not a pacifist, I would fight with any means to protect myself and my loved ones, that doesn't mean I need to become a slave in a system that can use me for causes I do not support.

Against a well trained, well equipped soldiers that trained vigorously in fighting a war? Not everyone are naturally a Rambo or Simon Hayha. Even if you are, you wont contribute much in defending your nation. Nation that only rely on drafting citizen to defend themselves at times of war will always become prime target. A strong standing army may act as a deterrent, if it didn't worked, they'll defend the nation when invaded.

Hitlers war machine was just about the most effective army modern history has seen, but does that make it something to strive for? How about the roman empire? Pretty effective that too, but was it morally good?

That is why my previous comment are referring to some of the soldiers but not all soldiers. Those soldiers that on the aggressive offensive side were wrongly used because of their leader's fault. Soldiers can be heroes or enemies depend on whether they are soldiers that defending their country or invading other country. Your perspective and conditions let you view soldiers as a heroes or enemies. Heroic soldiers to other maybe are enemies soldiers to you.

The question is by which standarts. There are a lot of definitions considering it, particulary about heroism and heros in general.

Quite a lot of people join the military for the money, cause they lack any perspective and future. It has a reason why so many recruitment is done in socially deprived areas. And many of them do not really care about to either save, protect or do anything one would usualy conect with a noble warrior or heroism. A soldier is a human first a fighter later. So there are many definitions of heroic actions, joining the militay is not what I see as heroism. Even if it means that you give up parts of your life or individuality and protection you usualy have. Particularly when you know before you already join what they expect from you, for example "maybe" killing people.

This actualy is in my eyes a better example of a soldier beeing a "hero".

Yes some people joined the army because of money etc etc. But this doesn't mean you can deny the rest of the soldiers that are really and sincerely joined the army in order to protect their countrymen.

I don't know about the Western culture, but in Eastern culture people that lack any prospective and future wont bother joining the army that will put their life on risk. They rather do a way safer and easier job like gardener, waiter etc etc etc. Earning money by serving tea and mowing lawn beat earning money by being as a soldier where you have to train like a mule ,living a strict discipline life and living away from your families. Hell, some even rather become a beggar.

Either for money or really wanted to serve and protect, soldiers still become the vanguard that protect us when we're under attacked. They are the first line of defense in case our country is under attacked. Whether you gonna keep living in your country peacefully or being a refugee in other country are depended on the soldiers that serve as your protector.

------------------------------

Maybe culture difference led people to have different views about soldiers. Kahgan, you came from Norway that relatively peaceful throughout the history might think soldiers as redundant or irrelevant, but to me as an Asian where our region and my homeland China is horribly suffered in WWII, soldiers(defending soldiers of course) in my view are actually play an important role in our life. We learned a hard lesson that when we didn't disturb other people doesn't necessary mean that other people won't offend us, the world is not that simple. We have to ready to defend ourselves from repeating the same misfortune. Remember not everyone share the same fortune of living peacefully without constant threat as your nation are. The day where every nations do not required any army to defend themselves and able to co-exist peacefully is still a very long distant away....

Back to topic:

[sarcasm]THIS is the most badass mofos that actually worshiped by people.[sarcasm]
 
JunWisewar said:
Yes some people joined the army because of money etc etc. But this doesn't mean you can deny the rest of the soldiers that are really and sincerely joined the army in order to protect their countrymen.
That for itself is a very arguable point.

I dont say now that it might not be true and there would never be a reason of defence. But I at the moment at least I fail to see what kind of defence the recent wars have been. And the situations today are not much better then before. From what they say in public and how things look like the situation in Afghanistan is not in favour for the western coalitions. And things in Iraq are today just as worse like always. People see more and more in the military of the western world occupying force and I tend to share this view when I see how many mercenaries and different forces behave in the nations they wanted to "liberate". I guess the last time where it was more or less easy to see some nation as defender was in WW2. But already in that time much was caused by political reasons.

Many times I dont see the military today act in a way that could be described as defence of the homeland. THey are a tool in political sense and it always has been when arabia decided to stop oil supply quite many seriously seen a military intervention as possiblity now I doubt that this can be seen as defence when you seriously think about hurting the sovereignty from some nation. It is a violant world, and in a violant world there is no doubt that you need some military. For many reasons. And I dont see a issue with someone who joins the military to be a soldier and train cause of such reasons. But most of the time it doesnt stay that way and the soldiers are forced in situations where seems to be no reason of defence. Like Vietnam or Algeria when it was still colonised by the French.

JunWisewar said:
...
Against a well trained, well equipped soldiers that trained vigorously in fighting a war? Not everyone are naturally a Rambo or Simon Hayha. Even if you are, you wont contribute much in defending your nation. Nation that only rely on drafting citizen to defend themselves at times of war will always become prime target. A strong standing army may act as a deterrent, if it didn't worked, they'll defend the nation when invaded.
And still nations like Vietnam, Afghanistan and many others managed to make a long stand against big forces superior in training and numbers. Even when anyone said it was impossible.

Its not always that way. But there is always a difference between a mercenary and occupying force or someone fighting for his home and family.

At the moment most western armies represent somewhat a force of mercenaries considering how questionable the reasons are why they fight and where they fight. They have the best training, best equipment. And still. The situations today prove that training and equipment do not solve everything. It has not for the Germans 60 years in the past. It does not today.

------------------------------------------------------------
JunWisewar said:
.
... but to me as an Asian where our region and my homeland China is horribly suffered in WWII, soldiers(defending soldiers of course) in my view are actually play an important role in our life....
China is a story for itself. They went from one extreme side to the other. There is probably no plain "right" or "wrong". But I have my doubts that the recent events always have been in favour for China. Particuilarly where the military was involved. I guess this Dragon has a lot of depths.


JunWisewar said:
.
..., the world is not that simple. ....
I can only completely agree with this.
 
And still nations like Vietnam, Afghanistan and many others managed to make a long stand against big forces superior in training and numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_People's_Liberation_War

Copy-paste, the apostrophe is screwing up the link...
 
And still nations like Vietnam, Afghanistan and many others managed to make a long stand against big forces superior in training and numbers. Even when anyone said it was impossible.

Its not always that way. But there is always a difference between a mercenary and occupying force or someone fighting for his home and family.

At the moment most western armies represent somewhat a force of mercenaries considering how questionable the reasons are why they fight and where they fight. They have the best training, best equipment. And still. The situations today prove that training and equipment do not solve everything. It has not for the Germans 60 years in the past. It does not today.

You are right about Afghanistan and Vietnam. But at what cost? Their people still suffered terribly and more of their own people died fighting than the enemy because the best Afghanistan and Vietnam can dish out is by opting for war of attrition or guerrilla warfare that try to frustrate and bleed the enemy. They are literally using bare hand to strangle a man that stabbed them with a sword. They're not actually defeated the US or Soviets, it is the US or Soviet gave up the fight because they cant afford the prolonged war. Yes both occupation were thwarted, but this kind of warfare is damaging to both side, especially the defending side. If US or Soviet were to have stronger resolve and support from their people, the story for Afghanistan and Vietnam might be different. But the main point is that Afghanistan and Vietnam are using obsolete and costly way of fighting a defensive war which damaged themselves more than the enemy.

Why can't a defensive army be strong? Why must people automatically view strong army as a threat even though it is maybe a defensive army? Are trying to defending oneself in a more stronger and effective way is bad or wrong? Must defending your country is to fight the enemy at a disadvantage position? Just because in world history, huge,aggressive and effective army like Wehrmacht or Napoleon's Grande Armee existed, this doesn't mean every nation shouldn't allowed to have a better, stronger and effective defensive army. Can't one man armed himself with a better shield to block the other man that armed with a sword? Also, soldier themselves doesn't start war, it is the politician themselves.

China is a story for itself. They went from one extreme side to the other. There is probably no plain "right" or "wrong". But I have my doubts that the recent events always have been in favour for China. Particuilarly where the military was involved. I guess this Dragon has a lot of depths.

Why people are jumpy about China having and improving her huge army that strictly follow defensive policy where their military budget is just 1/10 of US military budget? Kinda bias, really.

--------
Seriously this thread is de-railing....ahhhh the big mouth of mine
 
JunWisewar said:
One Chinese saying is "Maintaining an army for thousand days, employ the army for a brief moment." When the hard times comes, you wouldn't want to drag ill-equipped and poorly trained civilian and press them into service to defend themselves. You want an army that stand ready ,well trained and well equipped to do the job of defending the nation.

Like it or not, while you might detest the idea of an army, there are some people that won't hesitate to form an army and poised to rob you of your wealth, land etc etc.Prime example is Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan at WWII. It's not paranoia, greed can influence human to do a lot of nasty things.

Against a well trained, well equipped soldiers that trained vigorously in fighting a war? Not everyone are naturally a Rambo or Simon Hayha. Even if you are, you wont contribute much in defending your nation. Nation that only rely on drafting citizen to defend themselves at times of war will always become prime target. A strong standing army may act as a deterrent, if it didn't worked, they'll defend the nation when invaded.

Actually, WWII in Norway was fought largely by ill equiped civillians, even if we did have alot of help from other countries and even if the operations in Norway weren't that essential to the victory of the allies, we gave the nazis a hard time. Norwegian forces capitulated after merely days of fighting, but guerilla operations continued through the whole war, and alot of the people were just farmboys.

If I die fighting I'll go to Valhalla and drink with my forefathers until the last battle, where I shall fight alongside Valfadr Odin and all the heroes of old times, and they were much better men than we are.
Really, I'd rather die like a free man than live like a slave. If my "people" perish, then fuck it, at least we died like men (even though there are a huge lot of worthless morons in Norway these days).


[sarcasm]THIS is the most badass mofos that actually worshiped by people.[sarcasm]

here's another example of a real badass mofo: http://www.badassoftheweek.com/skallagrimsson.html
 
JunWisewar said:
You are right about Afghanistan and Vietnam. But at what cost? Their people still suffered terribly and more of their own people died fighting than the enemy because the best Afghanistan and Vietnam can dish out is by opting for war of attrition or guerrilla warfare that try to frustrate and bleed the enemy. They are literally using bare hand to strangle a man that stabbed them with a sword. They're not actually defeated the US or Soviets, it is the US or Soviet gave up the fight because they cant afford the prolonged war. ...
Again. At what cost did it Germany? The US? China? Its the nature of people we are talking here about. I Mean has China not spend much time and almost a gurelia like warefare against many of its occupants, not ending like a colony controled by either the British, Germans (Imperial), French or US? Did they not spend a long time fighting against the Japanese forces before the World War started and the US was involved. The US spend a long time to become a "true" united nation after their independence (some historians believe the civili war in the US was in many parts a reaction of the independence which made the South-North conflict even more prominent). East Germany needed almost 50 years to shake off the dictatorship, and it took a long way for both sides east and west Germany to feel united again. Still it was managed. many of the occupied eastern nations have spend more then 50 years of working against their Soviet rulers, and in the end solved. Are those better today compared to the past? Things change, always. Who knows what comes out of it in 10, 20 or 50 years. Would have anyone believed in 1917/18 that you can travel today from Moscow to London, without issues, without war, without reprisals. That France, Germany, Brittain and Itally will share the same agendas. In one parliament? The European parliament. Things go sometimes a very long way. Is it worth to pay the price? Frankly, I dont know it.

JunWisewar said:
Why people are jumpy about China having and improving her huge army that strictly follow defensive policy where their military budget is just 1/10 of US military budget? Kinda bias, really.
I admit it even. I am definetly biased in one way or another. Just as like everyone is. But I am trying at least to understand the situations and the principles behind it and dont just judge "cause" it is that way. There is always more then one reason behind something.

That China does not spend as much like Europe or the US is only obvious in my eyes at least. They do not have (yet) the same status in economy compared to states in Europe or the US in particular so if they would spend the same resources like those China would colapse or face the same economical issues like many nations with focus solely on military (like North-Corea for example) do. I never said though that a modernisation or increase of personal in the Cinese army is any issue or that I see that as a form of agression. China is one of the superpowers of the near future, that will have the same potential if not in some areas even more compared to Europe and the US. It is very likely that like Russia China will become a major actor in world politic which I see only as good thing. Its much harder for a nation like the USA or a union like Europe to make fast and thus wrong decisions when you have more very powerfull nations to consider as well. Just like as the Sovietunion was a opposite pole to the US politics in the past cold war time. Just that I see both Russia and China as way more peacefull both in their appearance and politics compared to the Soviets.

I thought you might understand the point I wanted to make since I was more trying to point to the actions by the Chinese gouvernement and Army concering the issues around Tibet for example (which is today very popular in western perception) or the many incidents regarding the Tiananmen Square.
tsquare-thumb.jpg


Tiananmen_Tank_Man_Google_China.gif


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4xtkpO7ZqU&NR=1[/youtube]

Quite some see the way China is treated by many western Nations as double standart, particulary when it comes to the way China deals with its internal issues (Falun Gong, democratic movement etc.). One one side you have a breach to human rights, visible but on the other side there are many economical relations. But of course that is not just something about China. Germany (and many others) have almost the same kind of relation with Russia. All like to blame when talking about Georgia, Chechnya. But to buy Russian gas is no issue. ( I am talking about Politicans, just to say that )

Now I am not a fool and dont see China as either worse or better then the US, Europe or where I live or do think bad about the Chinese people, gouvernement or army. I am just saying things can be always seen in many different ways.

Quite all have in their history many, letz say deep parts. Prague Spring with the Russians, Uprising of 1953 and East Germany, Faris Odeh and Israel (I mentioned on purpose situations that occured past 1945)
 
Really, I'd rather die like a free man than live like a slave. If my "people" perish, then fuck it, at least we died like men (even though there are a huge lot of worthless morons in Norway these days).

Now that is dangerous talking. You may don't care about the fate of your countrymen, there are actually people that care for their countrymen and their loved one. What about innocent children that know nothing about the world? What about the defenseless women and elders? You expect them to die like a "free man" where they don't have anyone that willing to protect them with their lives? Soldiers that willing to block the bullet intended for you with their lives is why they should be respected instead of being mocked by people like you as "pathetic" or "weak".

-----------------------

I thought you might understand the point I wanted to make since I was more trying to point to the actions by the Chinese gouvernement and Army concering the issues around Tibet for example (which is today very popular in western perception) or the many incidents regarding the Tiananmen Square.


While Westerner view's about PLA already tainted by Tiananmen Invident, but most Chinese(mainland China) view's about PLA have taken accounts of PLA soldiers' contribution in helping and saving victims of flooding, earthquake.

PLA were actually respected for their "firemen" roles instead of fighting war.


Tiananmen Incident is a really bad day for PLA .....having to follow the orders from the hard-liner in CCP to disperse the protesters violently. At that time China didn't have proper anti-riot gear which if they have at that time, Tiananmen incident would have been not that violent and bloody. Stability is top priority to the Chinese government that just emerged from Cultural Revolution at that time.....that is why the government hell bent on stopping instability happened in China.

Also, prior the the 4th June, the leaders of the student protesters eclipsed by a more radical and violent group which they insist on dying on the square for a cause which they don't really understand. Btw, the soldiers that responsible to disperse the protesters are from the recent Sino-Vietnam skirmishes front lines where they don't really know what is going on in Tiananmen Square.

I do not support both the protesters or the hard-liners in China Communist Party and the way the hard-liners handle the situation in Tiananmen Incident. The truth is, I'm unable to support the protesters that demand democracy and yet didn't understand the meaning and how democracy works nor the hard-liners in CCP that resist simple reform that can better the life of the peoples and the way they opt for using soldiers and tanks to disperse the protesters. Things could have turn out better if both sides are more reasonable.

IMO, throwing fist in the air and chanting slogan to demand the reform of the government system is the equivalent of a children crying and kicking to whine the ever loving crap out of the parent to get them something. There are better and effective ways can be done.



I love the smell of de-railed thread in the morning....*take a deep breath and look towards sunrise while holding a mug of coffee*
 
JunWisewar wrote:

They're not actually defeated the US or Soviets, it is the US or Soviet gave up the fight because they cant afford the prolonged war.

Uhhh... look like defeats to me then.

IMO, throwing fist in the air and chanting slogan to demand the reform of the government system is the equivalent of a children crying and kicking to whine the ever loving crap out of the parent to get them something. There are better and effective ways can be done.

What better and more effective ways would those be? If people don't protest (often at risk of their own lives, and for the benefit of their fellow citizens as well as themselves) then there is no impetus for change. To an outside observer like myself it seems that events at Tienanmen Square forced the rulers of China to reconsider their position and begin introducing greater 'freedoms' for the population as a whole. If those rulers also claimed that was thier intention all along, well, they would wouldn't they?

Back (sort of) on topic, these are the real badasses, and don't any of you forget it or there will be more like them:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm
 
JunWisewar said:
While Westerner view's about PLA already tainted by Tiananmen Invident, but most Chinese(mainland China) view's about PLA have taken accounts of PLA soldiers' contribution in helping and saving victims of flooding, earthquake.

PLA were actually respected for their "firemen" roles instead of fighting war.
The one does not go without the other though.
Your own words :
JunWisewar said:
.
..., the world is not that simple. ....

JunWisewar said:
...
IMO, throwing fist in the air and chanting slogan to demand the reform of the government system is the equivalent of a children crying and kicking to whine the ever loving crap out of the parent to get them something. There are better and effective ways can be done.
...
You are about that even indeed right! Germany was here a more or less unique situation. It might be debatable how long it took, but what is fact is that it happend in the end without any violance, war or riots (though it doesnt mean people did never died for it). It was the break up of the German Democratic Republic which existed from 7 October 1949 until 3 October 1990, but particularly the fall of the Berlin Wall which happend in 89 and without any violance. The people moved away a dictatorship without any revolution. The state just stoped to exist at some point.
 
What better and more effective ways would those be? If people don't protest (often at risk of their own lives, and for the benefit of their fellow citizens as well as themselves) then there is no impetus for change. To an outside observer like myself it seems that events at Tienanmen Square forced the rulers of China to reconsider their position and begin introducing greater 'freedoms' for the population as a whole. If those rulers also claimed that was thier intention all along, well, they would wouldn't they?

Tell that to the Myanmar's people that stage large scale demonstration which is futile back in 1989 and 2008. What about the recent Thailand's demonstration that demand the resignation of their current prime minister where buses were used by the protesters as battering ram and petrol bomb thrown at the riot police. Soldier with guns were forced to sent in to handle this volatile situation. Instead of doing any good or bringing any results, that demonstration were actually disrupt Thailand's stability.

Demonstration sometimes can be useful or outright useless and unnecessary.

The Tiananmen Square incident is another special case where luckily there are some reformist (mostly keeping low profile to avoid sharing Zhao Zhi Yang fate) within the Communist Party that balanced the Communist Party when governing China. Democracy is and will gradually coming to China, but not the way where a bunch of students hastily demand for democracy by protesting or building a statue where they have no concrete plans about shifting the government towards democracy(an ideology that the protesters still don't understand or know how it's work) and may throw the whole nation into chaos like the time in Cultural Revolution. Instability or the splits of unified China caused by any reason is a big red alarm bell to the Chinese people and government.

Back (sort of) on topic, these are the real badasses, and don't any of you forget it or there will be more like them:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm

errr......you sure they have anything to do with this thread about being a badass individual soldier?

-------------------------------

Crni Vuk said:
JunWisewar said:
While Westerner view's about PLA already tainted by Tiananmen Invident, but most Chinese(mainland China) view's about PLA have taken accounts of PLA soldiers' contribution in helping and saving victims of flooding, earthquake.

PLA were actually respected for their "firemen" roles instead of fighting war.
The one does not go without the other though.
Your own words :
JunWisewar said:
.
..., the world is not that simple. ....

The thing is most Westerners only focus the negative things that done by the PLA, they always left out the PLA's contribution in humanitarian efforts. Sure Tiananmen Square incident at 4th June 1989 are terrible which done by the PLA under the order of Communist Party's hard-liners, but this doesn't mean the PLA automatically should be view generally as a "bad" army etc etc.

What I meant from my comment which were quoted by you is that there are some Chinese people that have strong criticism against the PLA for involving in some unfortunate event and yet also able to love the PLA for their efforts in saving and helping victims of flooding, earthquake or natural disaster etc etc. You can and able to hate and love one thing.

No army in the world is really perfect because of the human's imperfection. But never let the negative view about the army eclipsed the positive or good side of the army. It's unfair to focus only on one side of the story.
 
JunWisewar said:
The thing is most Westerners only focus the negative things that done by the PLA, they always left out the PLA's contribution in humanitarian efforts. Sure Tiananmen Square incident at 4th June 1989 are terrible which done by the PLA under the order of Communist Party's hard-liners, but this doesn't mean the PLA automatically should be view generally as a "bad" army etc etc.

What I meant from my comment which were quoted by you is that there are some Chinese people that have strong criticism against the PLA for involving in some unfortunate event and yet also able to love the PLA for their efforts in saving and helping victims of flooding, earthquake or natural disaster etc etc. You can and able to hate and love one thing.

No army in the world is really perfect because of the human's imperfection. But never let the negative view about the army eclipsed the positive or good side of the army. It's unfair to focus only on one side of the story.
The German Wehrmacht helped the russian civlians in some occupied cities with sharing their military ration (after the city was reconquered in the winter the German General gave a order to share the food of his army with the civlian population regardless of the fact that the retreating russian soldiers have thrown all Germans they could find in the river). German soldiers as well helped with much risks to evacuate the German population of east Germany from the advancing soviet forces. And there have been many good tasks by German soldiers and members of the Wehrmacht on individiual level. And still even when many did sometimes "good" things it is the system one has to see today as whole.

No one here I think will deny the positive tasks of any army. But those can not be realy considered as long there is a system in charge which has no scruple to arrest, harrass andshoot unarmed, civilians knowingly. What does it help if one organisation will help others but kill on the other side defenseless people. It sounds much like a double standart in my eyes. or some form of apology. Now letz face it, this is not a issue only affecting the Chinese Army. In the US army you have many innocent people arrested contra to human rights in places like camps which most know under Guantanamo. A very well known and tolarted double standart. So did democratic states like France aproved the hard unhuman actions of the foreign legion in Algeria. Even with positive tasks which should be seen by any army as their usual task somewhere, the Chinese army, just as many other armies in the world knowingly and willingly contributed to criminal acts. The difference is just that in China it is hard almost impossible to raise any criticism of that kind. Western media concentrates on this parts, cause that is what counts and matters, cause that is what should be changed (one time at least), and the military, well any military should have some moral and a system which does not allow the killing of unarmed civilians.
 
Back
Top