# Personal Rationalization of Violence



## Meridian (24 Jan 2005)

Alright, had this discussion with a girl I was dating recently, we had both considered the military (and I had gone ahead whereas she hadn't) and her deciding factor had been "What do I do if Im ordered to shoot someone and I'm on a mission I completely don't agree with?"

IN this context Im speaking perhaps more towards an American-style sit such as Iraq currently where some pers do not want to be in theatre as they do not agree with their government's orders. Im not talking about illegal orders here.

Anyway, how did you personally rationalize the concept of going on a tour in which you may not agree with what you are doing? Discipline and training aside, have you ever seriously ever considered this.


[Side note: In a Military Ethics class back in St Jean (CMR) I came to realize that many of my colleagues had never considered what they would do in this situation, yet they were sitting next to me wearing a uniform with a gold bar on it.....]


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (24 Jan 2005)

Meridian,

A good question and certainly one that deals with ethics and being a professional soldier.  One thing that is important to bring out is that there is a distinction between a "just war" and figting a war justly.  As a professional soldier my focus is on my conduct (over which I have control) and not so much on the cause.  If engaging is within my ROE then at that time and place I'm probably not going to be agonizing over the reasons that I am there.  This is not a rationalization of violence but rather a code of conduct.

That being said, morale will probably by higher if there is wide-spread acceptance of the mission, with this effect being magnififed if this support extends to the home front.  I've only been on one tour and I believed whole-heartedly in the mission.  

As a professional officer I must be prepared to go when and where I am told and buy into the mission.  This does not mean that I am unthinking, but rather that I have a duty that transcends picking and choosing.  Again, I emphasize that there is a difference between fighting in an "unjust war" and fighting unjustly.  I've heard the humourous expression of "illegal war."  War means that "law" has broken down.  As long as my own conduct is within the laws of armed conflict then I will be able to sleep at night.  

It would perhaps be a tougher decision for a commander to put troops in harm's way in a mission for which the goals are vague or non-existant.  I think that Canadian officers have faced this problem in the previous decade.

Cheers,

Iain


----------



## PeterLT (25 Jan 2005)

Meridian,

While it is a good question to be delving into here in this forum, it would definitely NOT be a good thing to dwell on while so engaged in a hostile theatre. In an Iraq type situation, the friendlies and the bad guys are hard to differentiate. Speaking for myself, while in the midst of hostiles, my pucker factor would be much better if I could be sure there was no great soul searching or morality plays going on at the moment. If there is a concern about violence then the military is not the place to be. Despite the current touchy feely politically correct stance on things, properly applied violence is what it's all about. Best to be sure about things before signing the dotted line.

Peter


----------



## SigPigs (25 Jan 2005)

Alright, had this discussion with a girl I was dating recently, we had both considered the military (and I had gone ahead whereas she hadn't) and her deciding factor had been "What do I do if Im ordered to shoot someone and I'm on a mission I completely don't agree with?"

IN this context Im speaking perhaps more towards an American-style sit such as Iraq currently where some pers do not want to be in theatre as they do not agree with their government's orders. Im not talking about illegal orders here.

Anyway, how did you personally rationalize the concept of going on a tour in which you may not agree with what you are doing? Discipline and training aside, have you ever seriously ever considered this.

Well the first thing is it's not like you are going to be hanging around and you will be ordered to shoot that man! Someone will be shooting at you and it won't be a difficult decision to defend yourself. Also when you volunteered to be in the CF you will have taken the oath of service before self. If you don't agree with a missions political ramifications that's fine but your job is to be done professionally, since you are a professional soldier. If you don't want to go badly, then put in your release and away you go, no more ethical dilemma. 

Andrew


----------



## jbeach95 (25 Jan 2005)

DAOD regarding Conscientious Objection:
http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/daod/5049/2_e.asp

Basically, it says someone can ask for a release if they object to armed conflict in general, but not if they object to a specific theatre or policy.
My question is, if you are against armed conflict, what are you doing in the Canadian Forces? It should be apparent that when one joins the armed forces, he/she may have to go to war.


----------



## Sailing Instructor (25 Jan 2005)

Perhaps one ought not to rationalise violence but to see the ends of it (i.e. the war/battle) as undeniably good therefore justifying whatever violence you commit in order to get to the end.  Mind you, one can see that following only this can break ROE & Geneva conventions, but it's an alternate starting pt.

On the CBC programme _Ideas_ plays the 2003 Gifford Lectures by Michael Ignatieff in which he talks about the ethics of terrorism.  He manages to argue for the justification of terrorism so I think that there ought to be no problem arguing for killing a man in battle...or is there?  Ah ethics, with what would I struggle without you?


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jan 2005)

As per 2Bravo's comments, there is a hard line - a legal and philosophical one - between jus ad bellum and jus in bello.

It is the concern of the voters and government to worry about jus ad bellum (IOW, causes for war).

Your concern (as a member of the CF) is to worry about jus in bello (IOW, conduct of war).

Whether a war is started for just or unjust reasons is irrelevant to your responsibility to obey lawful orders and conduct yourself justly.


----------



## O Meagher (25 Jan 2005)

Sailing Instructor...

On the topic of philosophy....I should probably start a new post for this or something but I couldn't help but notice that you're a philosophy major.   I'm completely new to this forum and I'm not a CF member, though I'm interested in joining the infantry once I complete my Masters in Philosophy...I need something a little more visceral before Ph.D.   I'm wondering- do you know of many more like us?

THX!


----------



## pbi (25 Jan 2005)

My take on this is that we all have a moral "line in the sand". Those of us who have joined the military have shown that our line is drawn in a different place from those who do   not accept the use of violence at all, or those who can justify it only in self defence. Past that point it is not so clear, IMHO. Arguments such as "we are professional soldiers so we must do whatever we are told" or "as soldiers it is not our place to question orders" seem to tie a nice neat moral ribbon around it, but IMHO I doubt it is really quite as simple as all that.

Unless we resort to a Frederickean method of training soldiers consisting of close order drill and flogging,we are going to produce soldiers who can think, and will think. The types of operations we train for now, and the types of threats we are likely to confont, require this type of soldier. But, once the soldier is a thinker rather than an automaton, we risk disobedience.

IMHO although solid military discipline is absolutely necessary (and also IMHO in our Army today has been badly diluted...), it is not the sole answer. Equally important is how the soldier ( at all ranks) sees the operation, the issue we are fighting about, and the need for the use of violence. The soldier's understanding is to a great extent a product of the type of leadership he receives. At least as far as the Infantry soldier is concerned, the body of evidence appears to suggest that we fight and kill for the group around us and in response to local threats or to our immediate leaders. . History shows us that most of the time, most soldiers go along with violence willingly if not happily. Most armies do not fall apart in battle, and our Army in patricular has been relatively (not completely) free of mutinies in its history of combat operations. Where good leadership has been present, soldiers generally use violence far more willingly and accept greater risk. I believe that our soldiers today, while amenable to discipline intelligently applied, are probably far more questioning than earlier generations were, (and even they had their questions).

So where am I going with all this? To this: that each of us will decide when we have reached that line in the sand, but that where we draw that line will be influenced greatly by the quality of the leadership we receive. In the end, though, if you are not prepared to accept the use of deadly force you are in the wrong game. All soldiers kill, whether they pull the trigger, deliver the ammo, plan the operation, or patch up soldiers so that they can get back into combat and kill again. Anybody who wears a uniform and thinks that they have "clean hands" is a hypocrite.

Cheers


----------



## Meridian (26 Jan 2005)

Thanks for that PBI, I have come to look forward to your posts.


----------



## O Meagher (26 Jan 2005)

I think PBI answered MY question.


----------



## pbi (28 Jan 2005)

Meridian said:
			
		

> Thanks for that PBI, I have come to look forward to your posts.



You're welcome. And I enjoy all the interesting discourse with people such as yourself.

Cheers.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (21 Feb 2005)

When I was a boy, I asked my father that question.  He had served with RC57 in the Congo, and came back decorated and mentioned in dispatches for doing what you have to when things go horribly wrong, a long way from friendlies.  He told me that it didn't matter why you joined, it didn't matter why the politicians say you are there, its usually BS anyway, you fight for the same reasons in every war; the men (men and women when I served) to your left and right.  When you go into battle, you kill as quickly and efficiently as possible, because that is the best way to preserve your comrades lives.  You serve your country by wielding deadly force against her foes.  It is not necessary or productive to hate, you kill because it is necessary to achieve your objectives, and only if it is necessary.  Understand, that if you hesitate or shy from this necessity, you allow the enemy to kill your comrades who have placed their trust in your skill and dedication.  I expected a different answer from my Grandfather, who fought with the Grenadier Guards in WWII, but what I got was the same.  It doesn't matter where or why you are sent, you are a Canadian Soldier (Sailor, Airman), and it is your duty to wield the deadly force that the Canadian people have made your right, and yours alone, to employ in their defence.


----------



## Highland Lad (21 Feb 2005)

Hmmm... I remember, on the first crse I ever taught on, one young lady had an issue that came up during a lesson I was delivering. I was floored when she stuck her hand up and said: "What if someone sets off a trip flare on our wire and we don't want to shoot at him?"

As a young cpl fresh off ISCC, I was quite full of myself, and heavily stressed on hormones (Wainwright does that to a bod...), and my response earned me a lecture (and a threat of a charge) from the CSM along the lines of 'the use of sarcasm as a teaching tool is outdated and improper'.


----------



## CH1 (22 Feb 2005)

A very wise & sage RSM once told me that my role was not to question why, It is to do or die.  That thought has taken me through a few cess pools, & brought me home again.

After the first couple of cess pools, I finally got past the obvious, & realised that you rely on your trg & the rest of your section, platoon, etc, to make difficult situations easier to deal with.  It will also increase your chances of coming back intact.


----------



## Bav2002 (22 Feb 2005)

I have a hard time understanding how a soldier could kill another soldier due to political reasons.  No matter how hard it boils down to, reasons for war are allways a political matter.   Sure you hear how it is ones duty and what not, protecting canada.  But really, It feels as a soldier myself, were all pupets.  There is no way possible to rationalize the right to kill another person, maybe its LAWFUL - but not RIGHT.  Self-defence I believe is a mans right, no matter the circumstances...  however i belive to kill one for trying to kill you, its simply sinking to their level.  This may sound absoloutly absurd to all of you but i belive this is true, and I am a soldier.


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Feb 2005)

Awful glad all those lads who hit the beaches in Normandy didn't feel this way.

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## Bav2002 (22 Feb 2005)

Im sure for evey man they killed it only killed themselves, and for every man that was killed, well theyre dead period.  
I think the problem lies in the way we think, theres nothing really we can do about that, perhaps too deep of a subject.

I have a hard time continuing to serve in the armed forces when i see or hear of people being killed because "he said so"  or "for the country"  "freedom".  I love my country, we are our own identity, but like most places on earth we breed our killers, soldiers, for self-defence.  Does anyone belive in an Ideal world we would have no Borders?  Weve got enough land in canada for millions of starving people to live off, can someone please justify this?  when WE die at war or sacrifice ourselves many excuse it as a DEED to our country...  our own rock.  

 :-X


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Feb 2005)

We are each entitled to our opinions.  I am an immigrant to this country, and I thank whoever watches out for us every day that my parents came here.  It is my personal belief that anyone unwilling to take up arms to defend this land, should not expect to reap the benefits of living here.  Again, just one old soldiers opinion.

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## Spr.Earl (22 Feb 2005)

Bav2002 said:
			
		

> Im sure for evey man they killed it only killed themselves, and for every man that was killed, well theyre dead period.
> I think the problem lies in the way we think, theres nothing really we can do about that, perhaps too deep of a subject.
> 
> I have a hard time continuing to serve in the armed forces when i see or hear of people being killed because "he said so"   or "for the country"   "freedom".   I love my country, we are our own identity, but like most places on earth we breed our killers, soldiers, for self-defence.   Does anyone belive in an Ideal world we would have no Borders?   Weve got enough land in canada for millions of starving people to live off, can someone please justify this?   when WE die at war or sacrifice ourselves many excuse it as a DEED to our country...   our own rock.
> :-X



In the Military when are trained   you bond as a Team weather Eng.,Inf.,Arty.,Navy or Air Force.
You do your Job!

You are trained to stay alive to the best of your abilty while denying the enemies best chance's of killing you.

Your training kick's in and you react no if's and or but's against a Formal Enemy.

I can guarntee guarantee our R.O.E.'s are so stringent that we do have 99.99% control over our own actions.

I can't speak of late but heres a real conumdrum going back in 95   doing work up training for a U.N. Op. all Peace,Goody,Goody Soldier no sweat.
Next year in 96 was for IFOR Total NATO training !!
Total differant scene!
Team attack's,section attack's,all live fire with grenades.
I ended up in Bosnia that year loaded for Bear but under control.
If you are not wiiling or can not be ready for quick change's I guess the Military is not for you


----------



## pbi (22 Feb 2005)

Bav2002 said:
			
		

> I have a hard time understanding how a soldier could kill another soldier due to political reasons.   No matter how hard it boils down to, reasons for war are allways a political matter.     Sure you hear how it is ones duty and what not, protecting canada.   But really, It feels as a soldier myself, were all pupets.   There is no way possible to rationalize the right to kill another person, maybe its LAWFUL - but not RIGHT.   Self-defence I believe is a mans right, no matter the circumstances...   however i belive to kill one for trying to kill you, its simply sinking to their level.   This may sound absoloutly absurd to all of you but i belive this is true, and I am a soldier.



No-you are a person wearing a uniform. You are not a soldier.If your post is an accurate reflection of your beliefs, you are incapable of serving as a soldier, even as a medic. I really have to ask what you were thinking about when you joined, and what your understanding of the profession of arms actually is. Did you perhaps think it was just a "job"? I suggest that you be true to your personal beliefs and take your release before your beliefs put you in a situation in which you: a) endanger your own life through inability to act; or b) endanger the lives of your comrades who depend upon you. You are entitled to your beliefs, but they are the wrong ones for service in the military.

Cheers


----------



## George Wallace (22 Feb 2005)

Unfortunately, there are many in the Armed Forces today who hold similar values as Bav2002.  Many in our CS and GS Bns figure that they are safe from Cbt in those positions and their job is only 9 to 4, five days a week like any other job in this country.  I have seen Cbt Units in 2 CMBG have to send pers to 2 Svc Bn to fill up its ranks on Tour because too many of its' Truckers refused to go on Tour.  Remember back in 1995, when the Airborne were disbanded, and all the Support Trades who took release rather than get posted to Petawawa.  

It is unfortunate that these people have been allowed to infiltrate the military.  They are a serious problem.  As has been noted, they can cause the eventual death of their comrades or themselves if they can not perform their duties and use deadly force when required.  There are many who hold philosophies like this and in all trades.  We even have a WO in our regiment who ordered his crew not to load the 25 mm while on tour with SFOR.  The scary part is that many today have forgotten his deeds and he is away again.  I only hope that his actions do not cause the death of himself, his crew and perhaps his Troop.

As Pbi said: This is no job for a person who holds that philosophy.

GW


----------



## BDTyre (22 Feb 2005)

Your wise and sage RSM was simply quoting Tennyson (as am I in my sig).

Not to say he isn't wise or sage.  Just an FYI.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (22 Feb 2005)

Bav2002,

A soldier does not kill another soldier over political differences.   Soldiers decide to kill or not kill for a wide variety of reasons (please read On Killing by Grossman).   Duty, comradeship, self-defence and other factors enter in but I'm fairly sure that the political backdrop of the war is fairly remote at that point.   I have joined a profession (a calling if you will) and am prepared to live with all that that entails, which includes the possibility of killing or being killed.   War is not some neat moral play.

Killing an enemy soldier who is trying to kill me is not "sinking to their level."   A potential enemy and myself are "peers".   He is not trying to kill me for personal gain but rather for the same reasons that I would be trying to kill him.   I might even have more in common with him than with some of my own countrymen (due to our mutual profession).  That's war for you.   

Nations must defend themselves against aggression and to do so they need armies composed of soldiers who are prepared to put everything on the line.   Perhaps this makes me one of those "Realists" that some of my textbook writers disliked.   I can live with it.

2B


----------



## dutchie (22 Feb 2005)

A very interesting topic, and one that I have a few ideas on. pbi, 2Bravo, and others have beaten me to the punch on a lot of my thoughts on this, so I won't say any more on those other than 'Here, here.'

One thing I have noticed here is the idea that soldiers kill enemy soldiers for self-defence. No-one has stated that this is the sole reason, but I feel that some have implied that. Generally, in our culture, we condone killing another person in self-defence, so I understand how someone uses self-defence to justify soldiers killing enemy soldiers, but it is wrong to do so. Soldiers in battle are not bound by the same rules that civilians are regarding use of force and killing. I feel it's dangerous, innaccurate, and completely ignorant of the most important function of soldiering to equate soldiers actions to a civilian defending himself. Sure, soldiers will defend their positions, their buddies, and themselves, but we shouldn't forget the concept of seeking out the enemy and destroying him. 

Afterall, the role of the Infantry is to 'Close with and destroy the enemy' not 'allow the enemy to close with us, warn them, twice, fire warning shots, and if absolutely necessary, fire on them, but only as much as required to stop their attack.'

As mentioned by others, soldiers kill for a number of reasons, not the least of which is a genuine desire to destroy the forces that oppose them. Having NOT been in battle myself, I would imagine that the preferred way to destroy the enemy is on the attack, not the defensive.


----------



## c_canuk (22 Feb 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> A very interesting topic, and one that I have a few ideas on. pbi, 2Bravo, and others have beaten me to the punch on a lot of my thoughts on this, so I won't say any more on those other than 'Here, here.'
> 
> One thing I have noticed here is the idea that soldiers kill enemy soldiers for self-defence. No-one has stated that this is the sole reason, but I feel that some have implied that. Generally, in our culture, we condone killing another person in self-defence, so I understand how someone uses self-defence to justify soldiers killing enemy soldiers, but it is wrong to do so. Soldiers in battle are not bound by the same rules that civilians are regarding use of force and killing. I feel it's dangerous, innaccurate, and completely ignorant of the most important function of soldiering to equate soldiers actions to a civilian defending himself. Sure, soldiers will defend their positions, their buddies, and themselves, but we shouldn't forget the concept of seeking out the enemy and destroying him.
> 
> ...



yes.... but other than for a select few in Afghanistan the gulf war was the last time Canadian troops had anything resembling your version of ROEs. That set of ROEs doesn't cover for whoever you've closed with surrendering and/or wounded enemy.

As a soldier if I'm sent to take and defend a position, anyone shooting at me while I'm following my orders is attacking me, I will return fire and decide if I will engage and destroy or withdraw, anyone who would attack me I will attack first if circumstances allow. My goal is not a body count, but an achieved objective.

Should the objective be to destroy a unit, so be it, and I will do what I have to to keep myself and my comrades alive while carrying out any and all objectives. I will not enjoy it nor will I hate it, I will do it because it has to be done. The enemy has the option to not engage me as much as I have as much option not to engage them, we are equally at risk and know the risk before entering the battle ground. This is a universal understanding of soldiers on the battle field.


----------



## dutchie (22 Feb 2005)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> yes.... but other than for a select few in Afghanistan the gulf war was the last time Canadian troops had anything resembling your version of ROEs. That set of ROEs doesn't cover for whoever you've closed with surrendering and/or wounded enemy.



What ROEs are you talking about? I didn't mention ROEs.

Whether or not it has occurred in the last 15 years outside Afghanistan (and that is debatable), the fact remains it is the willingness, ability, and training to carryout the task that is important, not whether or not the opportunity has arisen.

Other than that, the only other problem I have with your post is this: 'The enemy has the option to not engage me as much as I have as much option not to engage them' - you actually don't have that option, unless I am seriously mistaken as to your rank, but I get your point (and agree more or less with it).


----------



## c_canuk (22 Feb 2005)

I didn't mean ROEs as such, just the general theme of what you said a soldier should be thinking on the battle field. ROEs was much shorter =)




> you actually don't have that option



what I meant is this

If I don't engage the enemy I don't have to kill him, though there will be other repercussions down the line, if I am in a position where I truely believe that it would be wrong for me to kill a stranger who is trying to kill me or would if he had the chance(though the chances of me believeing this and it not being a severly criminal order are probably so remote it's not even worth thinking about), then I could refuse to attack... what happens after that would be out of my control... does the death penally still apply in this case or is it off the books totally now? This is why officers stil carry the browning 9mm right?


----------



## dutchie (22 Feb 2005)

Agreed: everyone has free will. You can't actually give up free will. You CAN choose to follow orders without examining them (what soldiers do), but in the end, we are not robots. Our bodies act on OUR orders, no-one elses. This is venturing into some murky and philosophical waters, however.

If you choose to not attack (or otherwise engage the enemy) when you should, you are disobeying a lawful command (assumed). I'm no Military legal expert, but I imagine a cowardice charge would also result.


----------



## Mad Max (22 Feb 2005)

All right! Here we go again...There are some people on this site who just don't get it! If you are a soldier in the Canadian Army, then you have sworn an oath to defend the nation. Period. You can not, on the one hand, accept your soldier's pay, while on the other maintain that you would not kill in the performance of your duties. It may seem objectionable to some, but, ultimately, killing in the performance of one's duties is the ABSOLUTE raison d'etre for having an Armed Force in the pay of the nation's Government. There is no grey area here, there should be no moral dilemma- if you wear the uniform, you are obliged to be prepared to fulfill your part of the unlimited liability contract- to be prepared to kill or be killed, ultimately. This is not Rambonian Bullshit, this is the way it is. Bav 2002, whoever you are, do NOT say to yourself or to anyone else in MY sight picture that you are a soldier while speaking as you do. You are accepting your pay as a soldier under false pretences, and are, therefore, a disgrace to the uniform.


----------



## TCBF (22 Feb 2005)

We have people who don't believe they can defend Canada because they have been swallowing propaganda all of their lives to the effect that they cannot defend themselves or their infants.  They think they have to call the police and wait forty minutes.  This "Call 911 And Die" philosophy is just another indicator of the death by suicide of Western Civilization.  Ultimately, what people forget, is that the police exist to protect society, not the individuals in it.  Individual protection is an individual responsibility.  From this confusion "If I can't defend myself, how can I defend my country?"  arises a new generation of Canadians guided by an education system based on moral relativism.  How can you expect to enlist the masses in a fight of good versus evil, when all of their short, pathetic lives they have been taught that there is no good or evil?

"The old ways are dead, the old men are dying, and the young men do not know what it means to be free." - Gabriel Dumont, 1885

Tom


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (22 Feb 2005)

The willingness to don our nations uniform and serve sets us apart from the sheep.  If most of them would rather die than defend themselves, well, that's their right, but certainly not our choice.  Those who have heeded the call to arms, have accepted their responsibility to place themselves in harms way, to take up the defence of this nation, and wield deadly force in that cause.  From the clerk to the infantryman, from the engine wiper to the ship Captain, all are part of the spear: to think that only those at the sharp end who actually pull the trigger (lanyard, button etc) are doing the killing is naive.  The Canadian Armed Forces is a weapon, its purpose is to kill, to destroy the forces that are arrayed against our nation and allies.  We do so only in accordance with the QR&O's, the laws of war, and in accordance with the needs/objectives set forth by our political leaders.  We do not make the decision to go to war, that is the will of the Canadian people as expressed by their elected representatives.  It is ours to employ the lethal force that has been placed in our hands by the will of our nation, and the training of our service, as directed by our commissioned officers.  If you cannot kill in accordance with the lawful orders of your superiors, you are endagering your comrades, and threatening the security of your nation.  The best service you can do your comrades and nation is to withdraw from the forces you cannot serve.  We do not kill sport, but for the defence of our nation, and at the direction of our lawful superiors.  There can be no nobler calling.


----------



## dutchie (22 Feb 2005)

Well said, mainerjohnthomas.


----------



## PeterLT (22 Feb 2005)

I'd like to add a bit of a twist to this discussion. All the talk here has been on the ability or willingmess to kill for whatever reason in whatever situation. Chew on this bone a bit. A Soldier is not a Soldier because of a willingness to kill. A soldier is a Soldier because of a _willingness to die_.

This is the "raison d'etre" of all Soldiers throughout history. Soldiers are those who offer themselves to be killed or wounded on behalf of their society so that their society may survive unscathed. Then it becomes society's responsibility to train and equip the Soldier in the hopes that this can be minimized. Troops who do not have the inner willingness to die defending what they hold dear, be it monarch, country, flag, Regiment or simply the fellow next to him are doomed to break and run.  

This a neglected aspect of Soldiering even though there are reminders all around in memorials and medals. IMHO, to be a Soldier, before one asks," Am I willing to kill?", one should first ask," Am I willing to die?"

Peter


----------



## Mad Max (22 Feb 2005)

Listen, man. Of course, as per my post, everyone wearing the uniform must be "willing to die".But don't confuse the basic concept of soldiering with the Canadian Version of events. Let's not be melodramatic about this, but the role of the infantry is "To close with and destroy the enemy, in all terrain, all weather, night or day". It is NOT "To move towards in a threatening manner and then, when they don't run away, to die bravely for all the folks back home". Wake up, son. Nobody joins up to die for his country, although,as per my post, that's part of the deal when push comes to shove.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (22 Feb 2005)

The physical courage to face death is important for a soldier, the moral courage to kill is also important.   It is your job, often, to kill.   It is your job to attempt to stay alive to achieve your objectives, a dead soldier is of no further use.   There are occasions, rarely, where it is necessary   to die to achieve your mission, and then the soldier must face the question of his willingness to die.   In most situations, it is your duty to live.   A dead man calls no contact report, directs no fire, illuminates no targets, kills no foes, and saves no comrades.   On my basic infantry course, our course WO told us that it was our duty to help the other fellow die for his country.   It is an honour to serve, it is an honour to die in the service of your country, but by far the preferable option is to survive your service and return home.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Feb 2005)

PeterLT

We don't train our soldiers to die.  We go through great expense to train them to live.

GW


----------



## dutchie (22 Feb 2005)

Exactly johnmainer.

To expand on that:

Is it really courage that allows a soldier to act effectively under fire? Or is it successful training? Again, having not been in battle, I can only imagine and speculate. It SEEMS to me that it is partly courage, but also a good portion of it is training. How often have you heard vets, both old and not-so-old, say something like, 'once the firing starts, it's pure adrenaline and training' or 'it was the training that got me through, I didn't think about anything.' 

I don't have Webster's in front of me, but my definition of courage is something like this: Putting oneself in harms way to achieve a result, _knowing fully_ the risks of serious injury or death. If a soldier acts without thinking, without assessing the risks, are they courageous or well trained? Same thing goes for cowardice. If a soldier does something to minimize the risk of personal injury/death without thinking, instinctively, are they a coward or poorly trained?


----------



## PeterLT (22 Feb 2005)

> We don't train our soldiers to die.  We go through great expense to train them to live.



Well, did I ever stir up a hornets nest there! 

My point stands. And for those who missed it. To be a Soldier, one must first be willing to be killed in battle. This does not imply in any way that we send untrained folks out there as cannon fodder simply because they are suicidal. It is society's responsibility to train and equip the Soldier to do his job. But an individual must undergo training and be possibly be deployed with the full knowledge that he may die and accept that before proceeding to be effective. 

During the first Gulf War I was instructed to brief my section on the importance of having things in place as we were on 3 hours notice to move. Wills, family arrangements, etc all had to be looked after as we were in Lahr and family matters could be a concern. One of my Corporals approached me immediately after the O-Gp and submitted his release. I asked why and he said that nobody told him he'd have to go to war and possibly be killed. It was a shock to him. Hence my point, if you don't accept that very important point before getting involved in soldiering, you will not be effective when the time comes no matter what the training. I believe that we neglect that.

Peter


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (22 Feb 2005)

I remember when we were put on 24hr notice to deploy to the gulf, and filled out our wills and said our goodbyes.  I made my peace with my gods (I'm one of those annoying non christian types), and prepared myself to do my duty.  I won't say I was thrilled with the prospect of getting killed, but in all honesty, after years of training, the urge to test yourself in the fire, to face the ultimate test was strong.  It's not like I was burning with the desire to kill people, actually, that wasn't really in my thoughts.  I wanted to face the test my father faced in the Congo, my Granfather faced at Normandy, his father at Ypres.  I wanted to know if I was equal to the task.  I had the training, I had the knowledge, I had the desire; but did I have what it took for real.  Saddam collapsed before our deployment overseas, we were all worked up for a war that was over.  I do regret not having the chance to fight.  Civilians who hear this paint me as some sort of psycho, but that is civvy BS.  All of us who served prepared ourselves for war in the service to our country, how many of us who never had to do our duty in the face of enemy fire, day after day, week after week, will always wonder if we would have passed that test?


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (22 Feb 2005)

Amen to that.


----------



## Bav2002 (23 Feb 2005)

pbi, Mad Max, etc.  you dont know me.  I can understand how people could be hard pressed by some of my opinions - ofcourse, i am questioning the beliefs of many soldiers.  I am a damn good soldier, i look out for all of my buddies and work to the best of my ability.  I think this topic scares a lot of people, but as one meets new people, as i have learned myself, you will begin to think in different ways.

A good friend of mine for years is an immigrant from south eastern europe.  He's told me stories that could blow my ears off - he had grown up in war all his life.  He has allways said that one can never understand war unless it has hit your own home.  Being, we think very differently of war and death simply because in our lives nobody has shelled any canadian cities, or killed our families on OUR OWN LAND.  

I come from a country myself that has felt effects of civil war (My english )  Not in my time however...

I would not die for a country but i would die for my blood, family, etc.  If canada was under a threat, i would do all duties to my best abilities.  Even if i was forced to fight against my beleifs, i WOULD fight becuase of my fellow soldiers welfare.  

MarineRjohntomas' post was very interesting, I ask the question however - why must you test yourself in the face of war?  What is the fufillment?

Passion, courage, loyalty - all charateristics we hear of soldiers every day.  They seem merely surface characteristics, look deep down, see who we really are.


----------



## pbi (23 Feb 2005)

Bav2002: IMHO your most recent post represents a bit of a change from your original position. Originally, you said:



> I have a hard time continuing to serve in the armed forces when i see or hear of people being killed because "he said so"   or "for the country"   "freedom".



and also



> I have a hard time understanding how a soldier could kill another soldier due to political reasons.   No matter how hard it boils down to, reasons for war are allways a political matter.     Sure you hear how it is ones duty and what not, protecting canada.   But really, It feels as a soldier myself, were all pupets.   There is no way possible to rationalize the right to kill another person, maybe its LAWFUL - but not RIGHT



But then in a later post, once challenged, you went on to insist:



> I am a damn good soldier, i look out for all of my buddies



I fail to understand how a person holding the beliefs you outlined in your first post could be a good soldier, or indeed any kind of soldier. Then, most telling, you went on to say:



> I would not die for a country but i would die for my blood, family, etc.   If canada was under a threat, i would do all duties to my best abilities.   Even if i was forced to fight against my beleifs, i WOULD fight becuase of my fellow soldiers welfare.



So, it seems to me that you have abandoned your original position, or at least modified it. From stating that you are unable to understand how soldiers could kill for country or for politics (the idea of a country being a political construct, as far as I know), you end up by saying that you are a good soldier who would die for "blood", for family, for Canada, and for your felow soldiers' welfare.

In listing those reasons, you essentialy outlined the generally accepted reasons (more or less) why soldiers fight. So, I have to come to the conclusion that maybe you really are a "good soldier". but perhaps just a little confused (or just wanting to crank us up??)

Cheers


----------



## Mad Max (23 Feb 2005)

Nope-he ain't a good soldier.He's just a dumb kid who joined the Militia for a pay check. I served in Croatia and Bosnia, and that "I would die for my blood" thing just pisses me off.


----------



## c_canuk (23 Feb 2005)

Mad Max...

say you are in the field, just helped your section secure a position and a small child is screaming at the top of it's lungs cause it got clipped by a stray round, your section commander orders you to kill it cause it will give away your position and attract attention...

do you do it?

a Soldier who doesn't think about his orders; does that make him a good soldier or a war criminal?

If you think the Canadian soldier should be a good soldier by not examining his orders, I personally think you are way off base.


----------



## Mad Max (23 Feb 2005)

Wow! That's a great question! And how long did it take you to come up with that hypothetical? I mean, its real obvious to a good ol' Robot Boy like myself that I'm WAY outta ma league here! If I had a sockful of horse crap right now, I'd be electronically slapping you in the face with it.... Troops, Troops, Troops, if you're gonna try this on, make sure you know your size first! My God! NEXT!


----------



## Gunner (23 Feb 2005)

Let's take the level of intensity down a couple of notches or I will lock this thread.


----------



## TCBF (23 Feb 2005)

Good idea, lets cool it off a bit.   All of you guys who still live in your mother's basement have got to stop provoking "Mad Max".   His desk is 3 1/2 feet from mine, and it's hard to relax during coffee break and lunch when he checks army.ca and sh_ts himself a cat.  

Tom


----------



## Chags (23 Feb 2005)

Wow..   I love this site..   What an interesting thread??!   I hope you don't lock it.   You are actually getting to hear what real soldiers think about their role in the military.   Its a tough world out there, and I don't think certain people should be partaking in the conversation.. unless you know what you are talking about..   let the pro's handle this one.


----------



## The Bat (23 Feb 2005)

Gunner
i understand that your directing staff but how can i take you seriously with sesame street guys in the back ground or did Bert and Ernie become Killers over night   ;D.   i feel that people have a right to say things, for what they believe in this is a free country i enjoy butt heads that get on this site and talk about there experience that they had when they heard it by rumors.

Keep up the good work


----------



## muskrat89 (23 Feb 2005)

If you examine that Avatar closely, those ar indeed killer muppets, complete with weapons and cigarettes....

I wonder where Gunner ever got that pic??


----------



## Mad Max (23 Feb 2005)

Finally! It's about time I got some supporting fire! I was just about to fix bayonets and go over the top, screaming "Death to those who don't have the brains to be dangerous". Go rapid, boys! Don't worry about resupply- Pushpinder and Jugdish are carrying enough ammo to kill the Chinese Army!


----------



## big bad john (23 Feb 2005)

I heard that Ernie was in the Paras.


----------



## TCBF (23 Feb 2005)

"Weapons and cigarettes"

Well, weapons aren't scary.  In fact, they are one of the three pillars of democracy.  But cigarettes, now THAT's scary.

I don't know about Ernie in the Paras, but what about all the heat those teletubbies took for their lifestyle?  What a load, I mean, four guys living in a BOMB SHELTER for Pete's sake, what could be more macho than that?  Prob'ly had one heck of a gun collection.

Tom


----------



## Gunner (23 Feb 2005)

Gents,

Army.ca is for everyone to have a forum to discuss issues.   However, fo somewhere else if you want to engage in flame wars.   Keep the level of disussion civil so everyone can patricipate.   A reminder that we all signed up and agreed to the conduct guidelines:

So before you post, imagine you're in uniform, talking to a room full of the press, 14 year old kids, your CO, and your grandmother.

In a nutshell, the hard and fast rules are as follows:

You will not post sensitive or non-public information.

You will not post any information that is offensive, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.

You will not post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this site.

You will not post any material which is knowingly false.

You will not post advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, or solicitations.

You will not post links to sites whose content is in violation of the above rules.

You will not attempt to bypass or subvert any of site controls or functions.

Postings which are deemed inappropriate may be modified or removed.

Users may not have multiple forum accounts without prior permission.

Users that ignore these rules or otherwise act inappropriately may be banned.

The information you register here will not be disclosed unless required by law. (You won't be added to any mailing lists or sold to spammers. See our Privacy Policy for more information.)

To sum up: Use your common sense when posting.

http://army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html

Finally, don't be dissin Bert and the crew.   I don't normally have an avatar but I have some time on my hands to try out some different options.

Cheers


----------



## Gunner (23 Feb 2005)

http://www.ixtreme.com/default.asp?title=home

Almost forgot, the picture was obtained from this website.


----------



## Bav2002 (23 Feb 2005)

I can understand how some of the egos on this board could have been threatened - I've questioned something i dont think many people could understand, let alone i could explain in writing.  pbi, i know i am a good soldier, i dont think it is anyones right however to tell what I am or not, besides YOU DONT KNOW ME - .  And Mad Max, thats very interesting that youve been to croatia and bosnia.  I dont want to compare credentials however croatia and bosnia, although dangerious places, WERNT WAR ZONES BUDDY DURING PEACEKEEPING, right on! dangerious, but not too too dangerious fun.  I dont like to be called a dumb kid, infact, thats rather childish of you yourself.  Anyways, enough of this.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (23 Feb 2005)

Bav2002 I don't think it is the ego's (mostly) that are being threatened, I think that by questioning the validity of others reasons for choosing to serve, you are (unintentionally) questioning their honour.  To a civvy, that word may have lost all definition, to us it has not.  My old man once told me that it doesn't matter what the soldier beside you tells you his reasons for being there are, 90% are BS on some level anyway, what matters is if they do the job, and cover your back.  You say you are a good soldier, and I take you at your word.  Maybe you have the same problem a lot of people in the 21st century do, you cannot accept that duty, honour, and patriotism are valid reasons, even when they are driving you.  It doesn't matter what brought you to the ranks, when it drops in the pot, if you shut up and soldier, not even Mad Max will care if you sing hari-krishna hymns or read Chairman Mao's little red book for inspiration.  In the end, it is a soldiers deeds that matter.  If it fights like a soldier, and dies like a soldier, then by the gods it was a soldier.


----------



## JBP (23 Feb 2005)

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> I remember when we were put on 24hr notice to deploy to the gulf, and filled out our wills and said our goodbyes.   I made my peace with my gods (I'm one of those annoying non christian types), and prepared myself to do my duty.   I won't say I was thrilled with the prospect of getting killed, but in all honesty, after years of training, the urge to test yourself in the fire, to face the ultimate test was strong.   It's not like I was burning with the desire to kill people, actually, that wasn't really in my thoughts.   I wanted to face the test my father faced in the Congo, my Granfather faced at Normandy, his father at Ypres.   I wanted to know if I was equal to the task.   I had the training, I had the knowledge, I had the desire; but did I have what it took for real.   Saddam collapsed before our deployment overseas, we were all worked up for a war that was over.   I do regret not having the chance to fight.   Civilians who hear this paint me as some sort of psycho, but that is civvy BS.   All of us who served prepared ourselves for war in the service to our country, how many of us who never had to do our duty in the face of enemy fire, day after day, week after week, will always wonder if we would have passed that test?



I commend you for your honesty. I takes guts to post something like that, I've never been in your position and hope I never have to be but I'm sure the time will come one day IMHO. Regardless, cudos to you for having said what's been in many of our hearts and minds. It's something you cannot really explain, I've tried. It's not that you WANT to kill, or be killed of course, just want to measure yourself up. Reminds me of a moth heading for the flame in a way... Lol... 

Anyways, again, big huge CUDOS to you!

Joe


----------



## pbi (24 Feb 2005)

> I can understand how some of the egos on this board could have been threatened - I've questioned something i dont think many people could understand, let alone i could explain in writing



IMHO it has very little to do with anybody's ego, and rather more to do with some pretty double-jointed arguing you were doing, and that I think I pointed out to you, and that you still have really not explained IMHO.



> pbi, i know i am a good soldier, i dont think it is anyones right however to tell what I am or not, besides YOU DONT KNOW ME -



If you go back and examine my second post, I admitted that this might be the case.(assuming your later posts were genuine...) . As for being judged here: well, welcome to the arena, Gladiator: just look out for the lions. In this virtual forum, we cannot and probably will not ever know each other to any great degree. Therefore, we will be judged against two criteria: our overt experience levels (shown in our Profiles), and the quality and content of what we post. These will always (for lack of anything more substantive) have a great influence on how you are judged. And judged you will be, to paraphrase Yoda. You may "know" that you are a good soldier: your challenge is to convince people here of that, given the rather ambiguous stance you originally took;



> I dont want to compare credentials however croatia and bosnia, although dangerious places, WERNT WAR ZONES BUDDY DURING PEACEKEEPING, right on! dangerious, but not too too dangerious fun



IMHO you just shot another magazine into your other foot. I'm not even going to provide a detailed response to this except to suggest that you ask a Canadian soldier who has been under fire and fired shots in anger and see what he says about that. Try one of the Medak boys. Combat is combat, bavvy boy.



> I dont like to be called a dumb kid, infact, thats rather childish of you yourself.



Then stop attracting hostile fire to yourself by advancing illogical and contorted arguments that remind me of my 15 year old.



> Anyways, enough of this.



Indeed.

Cheers.


----------



## c_canuk (24 Feb 2005)

> Wow! That's a great question! And how long did it take you to come up with that hypothetical?



less than a second, your point? how do you carry out your orders without thinking about them yet determine their legality?



> I mean, its real obvious to a good ol' Robot Boy like myself that I'm WAY outta ma league here!



why the hostility? did I call you a robot?

Working with NATO you could end up under the command of some really interesting "characters" (my word for describing the ever popular second ingredient to hotdogs and I'm not talking lips) from other countries, when I was in Bosnia I wasn't employed by a Canadian Brigade, I was under the Balkins Sig Squadron which was primarily a british formation... some of the officers expected me to Just do what they told me and not consider that 99% weren't even in my chain of command, and were simply empire building behind my COs back at his expense

I merely wondering where the previously mentioned scenario fit in with your "Good Soldiers don't think about their orders" statement, I admit it was a little over the top, but come on, so was your statment.



> If I had a sockful of horse crap right now, I'd be electronically slapping you in the face with it.... Troops, Troops, Troops, if you're gonna try this on, make sure you know your size first! My God! NEXT



I don't know what to make of this... 


I thought we were having a philosophical debate here

you made an absolute statement that a soldier never thinks about his orders, he just executes them... this is the first time I've EVER heard that statement made and not slapped down while in the forces... 

I submit that a soldier has to consider the legality of the orders given to him to determine that they are infact legal orders, you can't define their legality without thinking about them before they are carried out correct?

The "I was just following orders" excuse doesn't hold water when you return from the battle field, and I've been told that it is lawful to refuse to carry out unlawful orders.

Is there an   QR & O that states that a soldier is not to consider the legality of his orders?


----------



## Rick_Donald (24 Feb 2005)

If they have a weapon in their hands and it is pointed downrange at you or your buddies shoot him or her. If they have pomegrants in their hands and are trying to sell you them ( or throw them at you) don't shoot at them. Sound all that difficult?

This isn't about deploying to a country you believe we shouldn't be in( I don't think a Canadian soldier has ever felt that anyways) or being prepared to die in battle. The original question was would one be able to look through their sights and shoot at another human being? Very rarely (if ever)  has a Canadian officer ordered his troops to send rounds downrange on innocent civilians so let's get real here. Our code of ethics, our values as Canadians and our altruistic motives in past missions prevent us from murdering innocents. If one does happen to kill a non combatant it is the individuals responsibility and not the CF's.


----------



## c_canuk (24 Feb 2005)

Rick_Donald said:
			
		

> If they have a weapon in their hands and it is pointed downrange at you or your buddies shoot him or her. If they have pomegrants in their hands and are trying to sell you them ( or throw them at you) don't shoot at them. Sound all that difficult?



what does that have to do with not thinking about orders? that is an example of situation assesment and self defence. if your Section comander is mildly alergic to pomegrants and orders you to fire a few warning shots, do you do it?

As a siggy, if I caught a bunch of guys stealing my generator during an op, according to my ROEs while in Bosnia I was required to use up to and including deadly force to stop them from stealling the operational asset, I'd better be pretty sure that I can't stop them any other way, just opening up at them upon discovery would be a criminal act. At what point do I open fire? They are stealing my generator which could cause the loss of life of my comrades should they need support and can't reach HQ because I have no power. If there are no ops running should I still pursue the same result or can I follow them while calling the MPS on a Sat phone?

how does "A Good Soldier doesn't think about his orders" fit with that scenario?


----------



## Mad Max (24 Feb 2005)

Listen and learn, Siggy... First of all, I at no time said ANYTHING about soldiers following orders- that must have been someone else. Secondly, AGAIN, while it is true we all are entitled to our opinions, and can express them RELATIVELY freely on this forum, some of the opinions or comments- like yours- aren't pertinent or really meaningful. The scenario you painted, much to my amused contempt, was so ridiculous as to be discarded out of hand. I have participated in, lead, assessed, and observed more section attacks in more INFANTRY units and schools than I can count. Watching Saving Private Ryan 67 times doesn't qualify you to do anything more than to be voted "Best New Prospect" at your next Jenny Craig meeting. And BAV, for God's sake, take pbi's advice and stop attempting to put BOTH feet in your mouth at the same time. One at a time will do nicely. Lastly, would anyone out there like to loan Siggy and BAV a thesaurus and/or dictionary so they can compose some semi-literate counter-attacks for the next round? Thanks.


----------



## big bad john (24 Feb 2005)

Mad Max what is with the personal slags.  It is not very nice or even a valid way to debate.  Please ease off, remember we have all ages, genders and types on the forum.  I personally don't want my fiancee seeing slags and insults when she comes on here.


----------



## Mad Max (24 Feb 2005)

Big Bad John: I do apologize to you if you find what I say or how I say it offensive. I have moderated my language, as I am interested in this forum- but I must tell you that the vast majority of serving soldiers like myself DO NOT find the things I am saying offensive by any means. I am saying things, and saying them in such a way, that polite society would definitely cringe at- BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE WHAT I AM SAYING, OR HOW I SAY IT incorrect or unnecessary. To all of you out there who find my posts offensive I say this: I write about things I know- not about things I think I know. I AM aggressive in life, and in cyber-space. That's just the way it is. I am literate, opinionated, and, unfortunately, probably speaking on the wrong forum, to the wrong people. I was under the impression that this was a site for military- interested folks. I have never been to a garden party, I don't drink light beer, I don't like Communists or pseudo-intellectuals, and I am DEFINITELY a believer in the possibility of the rebirth of the Canadian Military. I speak as I speak, and I back up what I say. Have a good one, troops!


----------



## c_canuk (24 Feb 2005)

Mad Max said:
			
		

> Listen and learn, Siggy... First of all, I at no time said ANYTHING about soldiers following orders- that must have been someone else.



looked back through and I can't even find the damned post so either I imagined it or someone edited it out, and since you don't have any edited posts, my apologies since I seem to have offended you. :-[





> Secondly, AGAIN, while it is true we all are entitled to our opinions, and can express them RELATIVELY freely on this forum, some of the opinions or comments- like yours- aren't pertinent or really meaningful. The scenario you painted, much to my amused contempt, was so ridiculous as to be discarded out of hand. I have participated in, lead, assessed, and observed more section attacks in more INFANTRY units and schools than I can count.



uh huh, and how many times have you been under the command of a Romanian you know for a fact has personally executed his own troops over matters of discipline? How many times have you been directly attached to a NATO unit no where near any Canadian officer. I'm guessing as an Infanteer you never have, as a siggy this happens quite often to me and mine within NATO and the UN, so you can't assume that your officers have everything together. And as I mentioned earlier had you taken the trouble to read back a few posts you would have noticed a bracketed caveat saying that the chances of a criminal order like that comming from a Canadian officer is so remote it's not not worth thinking about.



> Watching Saving Private Ryan 67 times doesn't qualify you to do anything more than to be voted "Best New Prospect" at your next Jenny Craig meeting.



 :

I was asking philosophical question about when a soldier needs to think about his orders before executing them which I would have thought would have been old hat to someone with your experience... what of my question? do you agree or disagree that you can't go around blindly following orders, that you have to at least take a fraction of a second to make sure you aren't following an unlawful order? What of my second example of the generator, a handfull of locals in Bosnia would steal anything that wasn't nailed down repaint it and sell it back to NATO, you can't blame them, they gotta feed themselves some how, but what if I caught them stealling an operation asset? Even if I followed the ROEs to the letter and if they pulled a weapon on me after firing a warning shot, would I be successful in defending my actions? I would hope so but god knows if the media got a hold of the details (I can see the headlines now triggerhappy Canadian Cowboy kills father of three over misunderstanding to the ownership of a generator".

reading through this thread a new recruit or potential might get the impression that you are in favour of troops being mindless automatons. is this fact or not, please discuss rather than attempt to call my experience or lack of it into question which is completely transparent to me as not dealing with the issue at hand and has little bearing in any case.

And for everyone's dignity please stop taking everything said as a personal attack on yourself, one acting so thin skinned is not becomming of someone of your experiance and stature, personally I think you are pretty amusing but try sprinkling a few smilies in there so others know you are joking maybe

this is a spirited debate, and you left mothers out of it so I'm assuming this is in the manner of two members having a louder discussion over a few wobbly pops at the mess.


----------



## big bad john (24 Feb 2005)

My problem is the personal insults.   You do have the right to believe what you will and to state it.   But it is how you state it that matters.   Remember that there are no age limits here.   You can knock an argument, but it is not right to knock the person that you are debating.

Enough said, my point has obviously been taken.   Thank you


----------



## Infantryman (24 Feb 2005)

I need to address two comments...

"locals in Bosnia would steal anything that wasn't nailed down repaint it and sell it back to NATO, you can't blame them, they gotta feed themselves some how,"

What do you mean, you can't blame them?  Can you blame someone who breaks into your house in Canada, maybe he's had a rough life growing up.  Can you blame a drunk driver for hitting you, maybe he's just an addict who has lost control of his impulses...  of course you can blame them.  There are rules, and when people break them, those charged with enforcing the rules have to, that's how the system keeps working.

Also,
" but what if I caught them stealling an operation asset? Even if I followed the ROEs to the letter and if they pulled a weapon on me after firing a warning shot, would I be successful in defending my actions? I would hope so but god knows if the media got a hold of the details (I can see the headlines now triggerhappy Canadian Cowboy kills father of three over misunderstanding to the ownership of a generator"."

Now, the reason for having ROEs is completely lost if soldiers don't believe they can enforce them.  We have ROEs not to protect the potential innocent victims, but so that the appropriate violence and force can be applied.  The ROEs are there to protect the soldiers not their potential victims.  They give soldiers legitimate orders to follow and if they are robust enough, soldiers should not have to hesitate.  I completely understand we do endless scenarios where we what if things to death before deployments, but that is not so that we can keep what if-ing when faced with the situation, it's so we can act without wasting precious time when the situation arises.


----------



## Mad Max (24 Feb 2005)

Big Bad John: No problem. Siggy: I will not engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. As far as ROMANIAN OFFICERS SHOOTING PEOPLE??!! Give me a friggin' break man! Don't confuse your fevered wannabe soldiers imaginings with real life! You are a Reserve Siggy for God's sake! A Corporal! It's obviously way past your medication time, so, as Dennis Miller used to say: I AM OUTTA HERE!


----------



## TCBF (24 Feb 2005)

Pomegranates: is this one of those Monty Python Defending-yourself-against-someone-attacking-you-with-a-banana-skits?

As for taking your generator: you go over to stop them, even just stand in the way.   When they try to kill you: SELF DEFENCE, you slot them.   

Tom


----------



## c_canuk (24 Feb 2005)

Infantryman said:
			
		

> What do you mean, you can't blame them?   Can you blame someone who breaks into your house in Canada, maybe he's had a rough life growing up.   Can you blame a drunk driver for hitting you, maybe he's just an addict who has lost control of his impulses...   of course you can blame them.   There are rules, and when people break them, those charged with enforcing the rules have to, that's how the system keeps working.



Well yes I'm going to stop them, but can you honestly say that you wouldn't steal something to feed your family if you knew not much was going to be done to stop you? especially when some of us support our families doing what we do? 



> Now, the reason for having ROEs is completely lost if soldiers don't believe they can enforce them.   We have ROEs not to protect the potential innocent victims, but so that the appropriate violence and force can be applied.   The ROEs are there to protect the soldiers not their potential victims.   They give soldiers legitimate orders to follow and if they are robust enough, soldiers should not have to hesitate.   I completely understand we do endless scenarios where we what if things to death before deployments, but that is not so that we can keep what if-ing when faced with the situation, it's so we can act without wasting precious time when the situation arises.



I agree, but the issue is at what point can I apply shooting at them... say I fired a warning shot and they laughed at me knowing the ROEs I'm bound too normally but don't realize that the generator is an operational asset, and just keep loading the generator in the truck, do I shoot then, or wait till it's in the truck, or till they are moving the truck, or when they first lay hands on it... the ROEs don't specify that so I'm gonna have to make a judgment call on that at the time right?   which is my point, you do sometimes need to think about what your orders are.

Mad Max... I was hoping to hear what your position is on how much thought a Soldier has put into following orders involving potentially killing someone who is not an immediate threat to you, but if you're not interested in enlightening us so be it. *shrug* anyone else have an opinion?


----------



## Franko (24 Feb 2005)

big bad john said:
			
		

> My problem is the personal insults.   You do have the right to believe what you will and to state it.   But it is how you state it that matters.   Remember that there are no age limits here.   You can knock an argument, but it is not right to knock the person that you are debating.
> 
> Enough said, my point has obviously been taken.   Thank you



Well said BBJ....

*MADMAX*...couldn't agree more. If you have a job to do...do it to the letter. That's what ROEs are for.

*C_Canuk*,



> I was asking philosophical question



Don't expect a philosophical answer out of troops that have been there and done that....over and over again! You obviously have never been in a situation like the one you pose.....so why ask it? To spark a debate?

I do see you point...to a degree. A soldier must be able to think on his feet quickly and interpret the ROEs for the situation he's facing, however....moral delemas and personal ethics have to be put aside during operations, especially if a mission objective is in peril.

Personally if I were faced with that situation....he'd be face first in the dirt with hand zap straped, slightly bruised to get the point across. Agression and demeanor is the tools by which a soldier gets the job done without shooting....not just asking people to stop what they are doing. If it escalates beyond that...again ROEs to the rescue.

*TCBF*,



> As for taking your generator: you go over to stop them, even just stand in the way.   When they try to kill you: SELF DEFENCE, you slot them



Couldn't agree more.

*Infantryman*,



> Now, the reason for having ROEs is completely lost if soldiers don't believe they can enforce them.   We have ROEs not to protect the potential innocent victims, but so that the appropriate violence and force can be applied.   The ROEs are there to protect the soldiers not their potential victims.   They give soldiers legitimate orders to follow and if they are robust enough, soldiers should not have to hesitate.



'nuff said.    

Regards

Who here takes poli sci?    :


----------



## Chags (24 Feb 2005)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I agree, but the issue is at what point can I apply shooting at them... say I fired a warning shot and they laughed at me knowing the ROEs I'm bound too normally but don't realize that the generator is an operational asset, and just keep loading the generator in the truck, do I shoot then, or wait till it's in the truck, or till they are moving the truck, or when they first lay hands on it... the ROEs don't specify that so I'm gonna have to make a judgment call on that at the time right?   which is my point, you do sometimes need to think about what your orders are.



Actually, your ROEs would specify exactly when you can increase the amount of force required.  You talk about soldiers having to think about a situation before they act..  this type of situation is completely black and white.  Either this person is violating the ROEs or they are not.  In this case, no thinking is required.  Follow the drills, and what you practiced during your TMST...  that's why you do it prior to going into a war zone.. or other.   :threat:


----------



## c_canuk (24 Feb 2005)

> Don't expect a philosophical answer out of troops that have been there and done that....over and over again! You obviously have never been in a situation like the one you pose.....so why ask it? To spark a debate?



I suppose you are right, and no I've never had to point my weapon at anyone while on tour, however when you spend 16 hours a day staring at a ceiling waiting for a sat link to drop or something your mind wanders... 

the scenario I had in mind was that I had no backup and there were a few of them against just me, I don't have any experiance hogtying combatants, so I'm obviously not gonna try it on possibly armed individules, I'm gonna try to avoid killing them but If I can't scare them off in the scenario I'm gonna have to open fire, when if comes down to some strangers I don't know and my comrades, even as disagreeable as some (mad Max), my comrades win hands down no contest.

To spark debate... not really, just wanted to hear a few things I think confirmed by those with much more experiance than I do... I suppose the question sounds pretty cherry of me, but hey, if I'm willing to look like a cherry and ask the question, the least someone I'm asking could take 30 seconds and give me a straight forward answer without bringing my lack of experiance in dealing with what the question was about, or demeaning those in other trades or time commitments.


----------



## c_canuk (24 Feb 2005)

Chags said:
			
		

> Actually, your ROEs would specify exactly when you can increase the amount of force required.   You talk about soldiers having to think about a situation before they act..   this type of situation is completely black and white.   Either this person is violating the ROEs or they are not.   In this case, no thinking is required.   Follow the drills, and what you practiced during your TMST...   that's why you do it prior to going into a war zone.. or other.     :threat:



well yeah, but the ROEs say things like "once all other options are exhausted, use of deadly force is authorized" well who's interpritation is all other options? mine? ???


----------



## Infantryman (24 Feb 2005)

C_Canuk,
Alright,   this is exactly the mindless what if-ing I was talking about.    When do I shoot, once the center of mass of the generator is on the truck, or once the he puts it in gear.   These questions have no value as you'd have to define all the parameteres before judgement on that particular situation can be made.   That being said, let me humour you:

Your ROEs automatically include self defence, so if, as in your first situation, a beligerant pulls a weapon on you, then BANG!   No questions.   If you hesitate while wondering whether he will fire a warning shot or if he has loaded, readied, or aimed the weapon, then you're too late, and you'll feel like a pretty big failure if he shoots the guy next to you.

Your ROEs may or may not state that mission essential kit can be defended with deadly force.   If it does, it has to state what the mission essential kit is.   Assuming that the generator is mission-essential, and that you have been given permission to use deadly force to protect it, then, as long as it's the only option open to you (since we're in the make believe world, we'll say that you can't intervene in any other way than with small arms fire) then shoot as soon as the generator is threatened.   It's as simple as that.

I do not imply that soldiers can't think, but I do imply that hesitation behind the trigger is no good.   The calculation should be, do ROEs give me permission to do this, yes-> fire, no-> don't fire.   Done!

And as to whether I'd steal if I was hungry and poor.   Maybe I would, but I would expect to be shot if I decided to steal from armed soldiers...   If the locals don't have that common sense, maybe it's because our posture is not aggressive enough.

Finally, going back to your example, if you have ever held approved ROEs in your hands, you should know that warning shots are considered one of the steps of escalation towards deadly force, so you should never fire one unless you know you are allowed to follow it with a round in the center of mass.


----------



## big bad john (24 Feb 2005)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> well yeah, but the ROEs say things like "once all other options are exhausted, use of deadly force is authorized" well who's interpretation is all other options? mine? ???


ROE Rule 1) If they are trying to kill me or mine or those I am defending RETURN FIRE!   If you have to think about it, please have the courtesy to ensure that your will is made out and that your affairs are in order.

I really wouldn't want to serve with you, I would never know if my back was covered.


----------



## TCBF (24 Feb 2005)

Hints:

1. it is better to be tried by twelve than carried by eight.

2. i would rather go to my court martial than your funeral.

Tom


----------



## Franko (24 Feb 2005)

Everyone thinks they know the right thing to do in a given situation.....

You don't know what you'll do until you're in it....up to your neck at that. 

The troops here on this site are members who have been in that situation or something very similar. They have served through some of the most stressful missions that have occured in the past 15 years....I'm talking UNPROFOR, Somolia, Rwanda etc.

They did what they had to do and people who come on here and basically chastize their decisions because it's not the "ethical" thing to do usually get pounced on....quick.

Next time it may be worthwhile to pose a question and listen to the responses and try to see it from their point of view. Remember....they have probably done exactly what you posed.

As for the rest of the troops who think that the thought police are watching....that is far from the truth. We only step in when it gets out of hand. 

I personnaly hate what the CF has turned into over the past 16 years...we've lost our warfighting spirit. 

It's going to take a long time to get it back....whether the PC granola eaters like it or not...it will come back, it has to.

Regards


----------



## c_canuk (24 Feb 2005)

big bad john said:
			
		

> ROE Rule 1) If they are trying to kill me or mine or those I am defending RETURN FIRE!   If you have to think about it, please have the courtesy to ensure that your will is made out and that your affairs are in order.
> 
> I really wouldn't want to serve with you, I would never know if my back was covered.



my question was in the event of an operational asset being stolen how do you determine when it's time to apply deadly force, IF they are not threatening your life, if they got hostile problem solved, but if they just turn and laugh what then?

when I took my PSTC trg we were shown many scenarios on tape, one was a gate gaurd waving good by to locals working as translaters, then the translators crossed the street and were gunned down, the guard opens up (right on) and then we discussed whether or not that was propper application of deadly force, the instructor to my dismay said no, becuase the gunman was only attacking the translators not the guard...

I stated then that I'd open up if I were in the same situation and protect the translators and face the court martial rather than live with not having done anything to help them.

In my opinion a translator would be both a mission critical asset and an ally... this bothered me


----------



## Franko (24 Feb 2005)

:

Your instructor must have been sniffing glue.

Regards


----------



## Mad Max (24 Feb 2005)

Gentlemen: Against my better judgement, I'm back. I think I can sum this up quickly.Really, we should all express the empathy we all feel in our hearts for poor Siggy...I mean, it's way past his bed time, and the medication is just now kicking in. I think if we all use our imaginations to conjure up a scenario in which the kid would be all alone- WITHOUT BACKUP, FOR GOD'S SAKE- we can easily see in our mind's eye the result: Jimmy attempts to remove his weapon from inside his barrack box in the comm centre in the middle of camp. He forgets his lock combination. Is then forced to use the deadly martial arts that he was taught in Ninja School before going on tour. Is then immediately beaten to death by the aged, though, still deadly, cleaning lady who Siggy has mistaken for an NVA Sapper. No more requirement to worry about R'sOE....


----------



## Franko (24 Feb 2005)

On that note this thread is locked. The horse has been beaten...to a fine pulp.

Regards


----------

