How does the military convince soldiers to kill innocent people in Vietnam and Iraq?? Honest.. I don't know what they ar

[dahunan]

Honest.. I don't know what they are told to convince them that they are truly defending their country by killing people in Iraq who never attacked them or killing people in Vietnam who never attacked us

Why does humanity have to be like this?


--------------------------------------------
You have posed 3 types of questions - however, one is a troll.

Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy

 

[theflyingpig]

If you don't understand such a simple concept you are a fool.

 

[teclis1023]

Hi Dahunan,

I have never been in the military, so I'm just speculating; however, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the military doesn't encourage killing innocents. My guess is that young soldiers, in the grips of war, have a very difficult time truly understanding the situation that they're in. Most soldier are young and relatively uneducated, unfortunately. When you put a soldier who has been trained to kill into a situation where enemies don't wear uniforms, you're asking for trouble.

In both Vietnam and Iraq, we have young soldiers fighting an enemy force which, in many ways, is also part of the civilian population. Enemy combatants are not soldiers with ranks and uniforms, but instead plain-clothed individuals who hide bombs under their clothing. These same individuals use women and children to smuggle guns and as 'surprise' combatants. The point that I'm *trying* to make is that, without the distinct and clear lines of a uniform and regiment, and given the fact that in some cases, citizens join the fight, it becomes nearly impossible for our boys (and girls) to know who they can and can't trust.

Furthermore, consider who our soldiers are. By and large, these are relatively young men and women, either high-school graduates or even high-school dropouts. Many of them know absolutely nothing about the areas they're being shipped (Vietnam, Iraq, etc.). For many of them, I would suspect it's the first time they've been over seas. So already, they're out of their element. They're in an area where they can't speak the language, people shoot missiles and guns at them for just walking down the street, and they have to contend with suicide bombers and IEDs. So, depending on the situation, a soldier might be confronted by an individual who could or could not be an enemy. In that situation, the soldier has to make the decision of whether to protect himself and his unit, or to risk being killed.

I would argue that our soldiers are not being prepared properly for war, or given the proper therapeutic treatment while in 'battle zone'. Studies continue to show that more and more soldiers are returning with symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress. There are suicides on a nearly weekly basis. Our soldiers are suffering on the inside, and not enough is being done to help them. Our military apparatus is built on the foundation of immutable power and strength, and even in 2009, hasn't taken enough steps to ensure that we are raising 21st century soldiers with compassion, knowledge of international law and a basic understanding of human psychology.

So, Dahunan, what I'm trying to say is that I highly doubt that the military is advocating the slaughter of innocents. I also highly doubt that these soldiers go to war with the intent of destroying families. I think what happens is that soldiers become confused / angry / scared / any number of things which cause them serious psychological damage, and the result is a set of actions which are disgraceful and horrifying.

 

[Nebor]

Get real. The US Army spends more time figuring out how NOT to harm innocents than we do how to kill the bad guys. There are more non-lethal effects being used in this global war on terror than in any previous campaign in the history of the world.

 

[Genx87]

We killed many more civilians in WWII when we firebombed entire towns in Japan and Germany.

 

[guyver01]

Originally posted by: Genx87
We killed many more civilians in WWII when we firebombed entire towns in Japan and Germany.

i think we killed one or two civilians when we dropped an atomic on Hiroshima and Nagasaki too...

i could be mistaken tho..

 

[boomerang]

War is hell. Somebody said that once.

 

[Red Irish]

When assigning blame, I would place more emphasis on the politicians and, ultimately, ourselves: we vote them into office and in many instances remain silent in the face of the failed diplomacy, corruption and greed that represent the causes of most wars.

I make no apology for the heinous actions of military personnel in each and every conflict; however, the army only goes where it is sent.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Honest.. I don't know what they are told to convince them that they are truly defending their country by killing people in Iraq who never attacked them or killing people in Vietnam who never attacked us

Why does humanity have to be like this?

Are you like that? If you are not like that and are also human then clearly humanity does not have to be like that.

Even the notion that the army trains people to kill should tell you that training is required to override what is more natural for people, not to kill each other.

Also, when you see the wreckage of war, the psychological damage, the elevated suicide rates among combat soldiers, the difficulties soldiers often have reintegrating into society after such programming, the remorse and guilt so many feel, you can see that what is happening in war is not healthy for human beings.

Should we have gone to war in Viet Nam or Iraq? I don't think so. Does that mean that all war is wrong that there can be no just war? I do not know. I am persuaded that there is such a thing as a just war, that a country has a right to defend itself against an aggressor that wishes to to attack it. The Tibetans did not think so. It is not unlikely at all they are far better people than I am.

But if you believe in the right of self defense and you believe that other people can suffer mass psychosis, then I feel you have a right to kill them to prevent them from killing you. But these conditions must be real and not imagined, not the product of your own self induced mass psychosis.

And if you are going to accept the fact that the world is filled with psychotics and want to be prepared, you are going to want to have a trained army, no? And such a tool will have to be prepared top break things.

What you will want, however, is a country of wise people, people not programmed and manipulated by fear, not governed by greedy ambitious fools who will use your military power as a tool for other than a just defense and deterrent.

And the politicians you get will be a reflection of who your people are and who, in our case, we elect.

There is, therefore, the matter of human psychosis and the question of why humanity is mad. If humanity were sane there would be no need for war. Can war stop mental illness? No, I don't think so, it makes mental illness worse.

So real self defense would consist of helping heal the insanity that infects the world.

Psychosis is the certain knowledge that I can only be safe in a world where everybody is just like me and the only way a psychotic will ever feel safe is when everybody else is dead. That is why folk like theflyingpig think it is you who is insane.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: Genx87
We killed many more civilians in WWII when we firebombed entire towns in Japan and Germany.

yep, the firebombing of Toyko killed more people than the atomic bomb blasts at Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

Although, in dahunan's defense, it's a lot easier to drop a bomb on a target than to kill a person you can see.