• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Should the military be venerated?

Her

  • 11,469
    Posts
    16
    Years
    • Seen Nov 9, 2024
    This question comes to mind because, of all things, numerous Twitter posts/images about '(x) not being real (positive attribute), (screenshot of typical American soldier) is!!!', which got me thinking about the military. It's not something I particularly care to think about, given my general loathing of the subject. Because of that, I'm more or less going to step back from the thread, unless someone wants me to clarify parts of the topic.

    Here are some starting questions:
    - Are soldiers 'true examples' of bravery/sacrifice/etc?
    - Should we praise them? Do you think venerating the military is just?
    - How should we examine the Western military in contrast with military/armed forces in the rest of the world?
    - What other factors come into play when analysing the modern military?

    Feel free to raise your own questions and thoughts within the overarching topic.
     
    Here are some starting questions:
    - Are soldiers 'true examples' of bravery/sacrifice/etc?
    - Should we praise them? Do you think venerating the military is just?
    - How should we examine the Western military in contrast with military/armed forces in the rest of the world?
    - What other factors come into play when analysing the modern military?

    True examples of bravery and sacrifice seems quite vague. I'm sure there are examples of brave soldiers, or at least brave decisions, but I don't believe soldiers should be deemed brave just due to their position. In the same light, I despise the use of the word 'hero'/'heroes' when talking about the armed forces. Some of the army may be heroes, but equally some are there for less than noble reasons. Not to mention the fact that a large number of soldiers don't take part in the front line of war anyway.

    In terms of praise, I'm a bit more lenient. Someone joining the force should be praised just as someone else who works a demanding or potentially dangerous job (firefighters, police force, etc.). They shouldn't be deemed as something exceptionally special, though.

    I believe that we shouldn't culture belief that people who kill are inherently heroes or otherwise worthy of being venerated. We should take each individual for their actions.

    I'd love to know more about the army culture in the US - TV/films may well have warped my perception of what its like over there.
     
    People need to learn to recognize the necessity of the military and the sacrifices people make as a part of it without it becoming blind worship. Soldiers are people, with all the usual differences and flaws, and they need to be held to the same standard we'd hold for anyone else. They can heroes, but no more so than a firefighter, police officer, or anyone else who does what's right.

    The current U.S. military has unfortunately reached a point where criticism of its actions abroad and within (e.g. sexual abuse of female soldiers) becomes tantamount to treason amongst some sections of American society. It's really not a healthy way of looking at anything, especially an organization that is capable of wrecking havoc and killing a lot of people on any part of the world.
     
    I think people from all walks of life end up joining the military. Men, women, upper and lower economic status. I think soldiers should be honoured for their service and I don't think it's a good idea to pick at just how brave or how much of a sacrifice someone is making. I don't think most servicemen are concerned with how brave or how much of a sacrifice they're making. But the fact of the matter is, the military in general serves to put their lives in harms way to achieve a country's foreign policy objectives and that's worth honouring and respecting.

    I can't speak to the status of non-Western militaries, but in the West, militaries have a reputation for being professional, providing honest service, not being corrupt, etc. But it really depends on the status of the military inside the society it serves. Some militaries are quite active in military engagements around the world. Others do more peacekeeping than warfighting. Even others seem to be symbolic, since they don't have the capabilities to project their force and are simply not capable of fighting in the same way as other militaries. Some militaries are frequently celebrated by the media. Others are low-key. So it really does depend. But the bottom line is that militaries gain their respect through putting lives in harms way as well as their professional perception by the public.

    I don't think it's possible to fairly examine the military without at least a few paragraphs. The strict authority and hierarchy in the military system can facilitate the abuse of power. Sometimes how the military acts or fails to act is scandalous, to say the least. But all the while, men and women continue to put themselves in harms way for the good of their country, and operate within a system that can be fast-acting and decisive in high-pressure situations. Personally, I don't think the military is worth loathing. But at the same time, some militaries are not without injustices. I'd like to finish with a quote by Stannis Baratheon from Game of Thrones:

    "A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad the good."
     
    Last edited:
    - Are soldiers 'true examples' of bravery/sacrifice/etc?

    Yes, or at least mostly with the risk to life, many die or are permanently injured in the line of duty. of course some soldiers commit atrocities, but through out history soldiers have carried out massive feats of bravery.

    - Should we praise them? Do you think venerating the military is just?

    Yes if people are willing to die of a country and its people, then a praise, respect and appreciation is a must.

    - How should we examine the Western military in contrast with military/armed forces in the rest of the world?

    On the battlefield is the only real way to compare armies.

    - What other factors come into play when analysing the modern military?

    The use of Drones and the like. Also most modern Armies don't fight other modern armies any more. Most Armies now find themselves fighting terrorists and insurgents. so modern equipment like Tanks, jet fighters and Helicopter gunships are less effective, so the regular infantry man is still doing the bulk of the combat and against an enemy not bound by soldiers honour and the Geneva convention.
     
    - Are soldiers 'true examples' of bravery/sacrifice/etc?
    Many of them demonstrate bravery and/or sacrifice. The word "true" is meaningless in this context.
    - Should we praise them? Do you think venerating the military is just?
    That's a more complex question than it seems on the surface. "The military" isn't one homogenous group, it's made up of a lot of different people who are in it for different reasons. I think the most common reasons why people join the military are to serve and protect or to find a way to get ahead in life. Whatever their reasons going in, once they're in, they don't have much of a choice as far as what ends they serve unless they're relatively high up in the organization.

    In general... I think whatever their reasons, those who put their lives on the line in the supposed and generalized pursuit of national safety and national interest are performing a necessary service at their own personal expense and peril, and that's something to be praised. There are plenty of exceptions and the agenda is not always so clear-cut. Moreover, sometimes their methods go too far.

    Like I said, it's a complex question. Giving a straight-up yes or no answer would oversimplify the situation, I think.
    - How should we examine the Western military in contrast with military/armed forces in the rest of the world?
    I don't understand the nature of the question. You would examine them in the same way. The US military is larger, more powerful, and better-equipped. Generally speaking, I would say the reason for this is to further US economic and political interests.
     
    On some things, yes. On others, no. I don't really want to go deep into it, because I'm lazy, but I really don't see soldiers as "Heroes". You chose that life, that's good for you. It's not like you did something like stop the world from ending. I'll always praise the man that praises peace over the man that praises war. In today's time, war is obsolete. I will not congratulate or venerate you for killing a man. That man was a person, he had a life, he might have had a family, and you just took that from him. "He's a terrorist!". So what? Aren't you technically a terrorist too? Aren't you purposefully striking fear into them to make them stop? How does that make you any better than them? I thank those that gave their life in the Revolutionary War and Civil War. You have given people freedom. You were fighting for a just cause. The Afgahn war? Hell no. We don't need to be there. I don't care if they are terrorists, you are a terrorist by going there. You kill men with families, and for no just cause. At least that's how I see it.
     
    I think it's one thing to praise individual sacrifice, bravery and acts of heroism and it's another to venerate the military as a whole or to praise militarism. Like, for an example, let's say national pride is probably a good thing. Nationalism, on the other hand, has this almost sinister aspect to it, to subjugate others. Kind of like that - I feel the veneration of militarism is harmful and dehumanizes the other side in war. But individual acts of heroism and bravery from the soldiers that deserve being recognized for them is worth it.
     
    I agree with Stormbringer's points.

    There are good people and bad people everywhere as Kanzler mentioned. To deem a group good or bad by picking out the few exceptions is judging unfairly. Much like stereotypes exist because the majority seems to fit, until we find exceptions. But exceptions aren't enough to make it majority, that's why they are called exceptions and that's why stereotypes exist (also often to the fault of media). From what I understand, real soldiers do not fight for god and country. Real soldiers fight for people to their left and to their right. People [join] the military for rights and beliefs, but in actual combat things are very different.

    Bravery.. We often hear of bravery associated with the military because the examples are exaggerated. It is literally life and death. Bravery actually comes when we have the real feeling of "because they would have done it for me." I believe a talk by Simon Sinek pretty much answers this topic, and then some. Called "Leaders Eat Last" ~45 minutes, I don't want to link.
     
    I'm always hesitant to praise the military or the armed forces. This technically includes the policy advisers who drag various countries into pointless wars based on shaky evidence or realpolitik and who cause the deaths of innocent people, soldiers and citizens, for political gain and for being unwilling to adapt to the modern situation of war, well as the unelected theocrat I presently call my Queen. I have little respect for the former and I'm very divided on the latter. However, I do have the utmost respect for soldiers. They put their lives on the line to defend the country, and that deserves respect - even if their bravery is misused by their higher-ups. This naturally excludes those who abuse the position of trust they've been placed in by the people they serve and commit atrocities, but by and large, I do hold British soldiers in extremely high regard.
    That said, I'm not even sure if I can extend that definition to all soldiers in every nation. British and American soldiers don't sign up knowing they'll be part of a systematic abuse of other people, even if it does happen sometimes. But Israeli troops, who arguably sign up/are conscripted in large part to facilitate the subjugation of the Palestinian people? And what of people we regard as terrorists, when they're seen by other people as freedom fighters? I view Hamas and individual Hamas troopers as anti-Semitic and immoral, but I'm sure your typical Palestinian might have a different view.
    So no, I don't think we should venerate 'the military', as a concept or as an institution. I believe that the soldiers of my country are generally deserving of respect, and even this raises plenty of moral questions about cultural relativism, but venerating anything tends to leave it closed off from legitimate criticism or allows it to be used for jingoistic purposes.
     
    As an institution, militaries have problems. I was just reading about French soldiers in Burkina Faso and Central African Republic sexually abusing children. Now, of course that's not the case for all soldiers, but militaries seem more willing to turn a blind eye to certain types of individuals. That's why there are so many reports of sexual assault in the US military against women by their own fellow soldiers. In other words, military culture seems to have some dark areas.

    There's also the troubling aspect of (in America anyway) the military targeting lower income and minority groups for enlisting. That tells me that there are people in my country's military that are there because of necessity, for instance, as a way to pay for school when they would have no other way to do so. Ours is a voluntary military, which is as it should be, but the people volunteering don't all have the same options in life. That part makes me feel like the military is taking advantage of people in some way.
     
    Well, I honestly think they should be treated with some level of dignity at minimum. Add kudos, respect, and veneration at your own liberty per level of decoration and term of service if you're aware of it.

    Their willingness to sacrifice their own lives is definitely noteworthy. Appreciate it properly and appropriately.
     
    There's also the troubling aspect of (in America anyway) the military targeting lower income and minority groups for enlisting. That tells me that there are people in my country's military that are there because of necessity, for instance, as a way to pay for school when they would have no other way to do so. Ours is a voluntary military, which is as it should be, but the people volunteering don't all have the same options in life. That part makes me feel like the military is taking advantage of people in some way.

    I wouldn't say it's taking advantage. The military has been seen for centuries as a way out for people with nowhere else to go, but it's reasonable work for reasonable pay. Those with better education and economic standing don't really see the military with much prestige and as a result just aren't familiar with it. I don't think it's structurally exploitative at all. Now unscrupulous recruiters are another matter.
     
    I wouldn't say it's taking advantage. The military has been seen for centuries as a way out for people with nowhere else to go, but it's reasonable work for reasonable pay. Those with better education and economic standing don't really see the military with much prestige and as a result just aren't familiar with it. I don't think it's structurally exploitative at all. Now unscrupulous recruiters are another matter.
    Well, yes, it's not exactly the military's fault it happens this way. It's a larger issue of inequality across society. I guess it comes down to the question of when you benefit from inequality, even when you aren't causing that inequality, whether you are in some way complicit or not. I might be cynical about this, but I feel like my country's military is content with the situation as it is.
     
    Depends, on whether you think you're country it's using it's forces correctly.

    Someone that kills people because it can't get to an understanding is not a hero, remember that in war, it's people fighting against people. The real hero should be someone who avoided going to war. USA wars have way too many dark reasons, i mean no offense but those soldiers are just pounds and that behaviour should not be praised, war should not be praise, neither anyone who takes part.

    I disagree. I believe that soldiers who genuinely fight to protect freedom from tyranny or to protect their home should be respected and praised; I have the utmost respect for the Peshmerga fighting against Islamic State, far more so than if they'd refused to fight on pacifistic grounds, although that has its own brand of respectability. I have similar respect for the French Resistance during World War 2; the RAF during the Battle of Britain and the Allied (and especially Soviet) soldiers who took on the Nazis; the British troops who defended the Falklands from Argentinian conquest; the list goes on. I accept that war can be and very often is used for the wrong reasons, but I nonetheless think it's wrong to suggest that people who fight in wars shouldn't be praised, when in reality many have died to defend the ability of people, certainly my people, to be able to say such things. The people who orchestrate such wars are a different matter entirely.
     
    Last edited:
    I see why you disagree, Argentinian conquest? What England did was a pirate attack, if you have that point of view then you clearly have a wrong reason to believe being in war it's an honorific thing.

    Don't mistake England and the United Kingdom for being the same thing when they definitely aren't interchangeable terms. Anyone in Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland can tell you that much. If you fail to make that key and reasonably basic factual distinction when referring to something in such absolutist terms then it puts anything else you say in a negative light. At any rate, the Falklands were the islands that were attacked, invaded, temporarily liberated, whatever particular slant you want to put on it, by the Argentinians; you can't call it an 'English' pirate attack. A pirate counterattack, maybe, if you insist.
    Anyway, the Argentinian assault on the Falkland Islands was in contravention of the sovereign will of the Falklanders and of the United Kingdom, and of international law. It was jingoistic/nationalistic expansionism masking itself as patriotism to distract the Argentinian people from a host of hideous social and economic problems that occurred under the Junta, based on historical/geographical territorial claims that are widely regarded as utterly ridiculous outside of Latin America and subtly incited by Margaret Thatcher to shore up her waning popularity. It was soldiers - Argentinian and British alike - who died because their leaders were playing politics, and it's a perfect example of why revering militaries rather than soldiers soldiers is so problematic. I have the utmost respect for the British troops who protected their countrymen in the Falklands, because that's what soldiers are meant to do; protect the people and let them live the lives they deserve to be free to live. But I equally harbour no ill will to the Argentinian soldiers who performed the invasion, because it was their leaders, not them, who decided they would die for an unjust cause. The fact that the military hierarchies in both countries lack that respect for any soldier in their ranks is damning to both in my eyes, but not to the individual troops who fought for their countries, whom I continue to argue deserve respect for their service to their nations, even if their nations abuse that service.
     
    You should really read more.

    Any "acceptable settlement" (The Falklands: 30 years on, 31 March) will recognise that the islands belong to Argentina, by virtue of the principle of uti possidetis juris.

    Following the British appropriation of Port Egmont in 1765, a Spanish military governor was appointed in 1767 to administer the islands. In 1776, by royal charter, the Spanish crown made the islands a commandery under the jurisdiction of the naval base at Montevideo, which reported to the government of Buenos Aires. Upon the May revolution in 1810, the latter took over all the territories of the viceroyalty of the Rio Plata, including the islands. Spanish administration of the islands was interrupted in 1811 and resumed in 1820. On 10 June 1829, decrees from Buenos Aires created the political and military commandery of the Malvinas islands and islands adjoining Cape Horn in the Atlantic Sea, under the commandership of Luis Vernet. The Argentinian administration was forcefully ended on 3 January 1833, by the arrival of HMS Clio.

    The above principle, as applied to territorial ownership and as affirmed repeatedly by the international court of justice, accords pre-eminence to legal title over effective possession as a basis of sovereignty.

    So the islanders have the security of Mount Pleasant defence but not of international law.

    I have no respect for plagiarists. Seeing as it must have slipped your mind, I'll take the liberty of including a link to the person whose work you're trying to pass off as your own.
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/01/falkland-islands-principle-international-law
    You should write more.

    The arguments therein assume that the Falklands are an integral part of Argentina and any/all preceding colonial entities. The Falklands were colonised by the French in 1764, by which time Spanish colonies had existed for well over a century in what is now Argentina. This, combined with the fact that the islands changed between British, Spanish, US, and Argentinian control multiple times, effectively nullifies any notion that the Falklands may be considered contingent to any Spanish colonial holdings in the region, and it is upon that notion that this article argues Argentinian claims to the islands rest - the Falklands must historically be considered a de facto and de jure territory contingent only to itself, and to no other national or colonial territorial integrity. There is no coherent historical or modern basis for this article's argument, effectively nullifying the claims of this article's argument. I suspect it is for this reason that Argentina has consistently refused British offers to have the matter settled in the International Courts of Justice no less than three times, and indeed Argentina can be accused of violating the UN resolution for all parties involved to resolve the matter "peacefully", due to its unwarranted and unprovoked invasion of the Falklands in 1982, as well as violating the UN edict that all parties take into account the interests of the islanders by dismissing the referendum that overwhelmingly supported British sovereignty over the islands.
    You, my good man, should look into history.
    By contrast, there are several reasons the British may rightly claim the islands as their own. The aforementioned islanders' decision to remain British in a referendum; British de facto administration of the islands for well over a century - longer than every other non-British period of control since first habitation combined - establishing an inarguably stronger historical precedent for the Falklands, as an independent colonial territory, being a culturally integral part of British territory in the absence of any other meaningful claims thereof; and British adherence to and willingness to work within the confines of international law all strengthen British claims to sovereignty based on legally and, in my view, ethically relevant grounds.

    At any rate, the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute isn't really the topic of this thread. It was simply one example amongst others I used to point out where soldiers should be respected for their actions, and I stand by the use of that example.
     
    Last edited:
    Hi if you two could continue the great Argentinian/British war in your own VMs that would be great
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Nah
    Apologies for allowing the thread to go so far off-track. At any rate, it does provide a demonstrable example of the tricky nature of cultural relativism in relation to military reverence. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and all that, and within the wider context of military forces and historical conflicts, the Falklands is relatively tame. The tension between Argentina and the UK is a sticking point, but it's not the kind of mutually exclusive reverence that actually causes genuine problems, such as the Hamas-Israel conflict. I can sympathise with the unbearable anger that the Palestinians who constitute Hamas must feel, even I entirely disavow terrorism as a method, whereas I can equally sympathise with the Israelis who want security for their home, even if the Israeli military's systematic oppression of the Palestinian people is horrific. I'm sure if I were a member of either party, I'd view the relevant military with much greater respect and would possibly be blind to their huge failings, although I do remain perfectly aware of the many failings of the British army and her troops despite my nationality. The reverence of the military or soldiers could easily be consigned to one of those moral philosophies that doesn't actually make sense from a purely objective standpoint.
     
    Back
    Top