- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
"Soldiers are not trained killers, they are trained to get the job done, no matter what the costs."
Ok, and what is that job that you are vaguely eluding to? Is the primary function of a soldier to make sure that his boots are shiney, at any cost? To ensure that there is not a loss of life in any situation, at any cost?
Or is his primary (number one, main, fundemental, rudimentary, numero uno, first,) function as a soldier, to be trained, capable, and ready to close with and destroy the enemy?
A soldier who is engaged in peacekeeping, is still a soldier first. If for example, rebel forces in any given theater of operation were to attack a Canadian military instalation, would the commanding officers be inclined to continue to commit thier forces elsewhere in accordance with the peacekeeping mission. No, everyone would be busy killing rebels, and they wouldn‘t stop until they defeated them. Combat comes first, you don‘t ignore it, you don‘t learn how to fulfill peacekeeping agendas before you learn how to shoot a rifle. If you haven‘t learned how to kill, you wouldnt make much of a peacekeeper, otherwise peacekeeping would be about sending hippies and preachers into conflict zones to try and solve differences through prayer and "sharing circles".
If people wouldn‘t be so defensive they would realise that those in this forum who are indicating that indeed soldiers must by definition be trained killers, are NOT insinuating that our troops are nothing more than "assasins"
If you would have bother to have read my whole post you may have seen: "I think everyone in this forum understands that our soldiers are much more than simply being trained killers."
Or, "People who take it a step further and express the viewpoint that soldier ARE cold blooded killers, or murderers, or women and children killers, obviously have no concept of what our military does in this world".
No one (at least not me) is saying that all a soldier does is kill. However he has been trained to kill. The police have been trained to kill. Slaughter house workers have been trained to kill animals. It‘s part of the job, the same as a forestfire fighter starting a controled burn to combat a fire.
You wouldnt call him an arsonist, he‘s been specially trained to start fires when the situation calls for it. You could call him a trained fire starter, and you could say it with a sinister tone of voice to insinuate that hes no better than a criminal for doing it, but thats stupid, just the same as someone using that same tone of voice when speaking about our soldiers being "trained killers".
So here it is, in the broad array of tasks that a soldier must be trained and prepared to perform, falls the task of killing enemies. Therefore he has to be trained to kill. When his killing training is completed he becomes a "trained killer". He also is likely to be a trained boot polisher, a trained bed maker, a trained uniform wearer. Do you see?
Nothing sinister about it. It‘s a job. Killing just happens to be a major component of the fundamental job description of a soldier.
Ok, and what is that job that you are vaguely eluding to? Is the primary function of a soldier to make sure that his boots are shiney, at any cost? To ensure that there is not a loss of life in any situation, at any cost?
Or is his primary (number one, main, fundemental, rudimentary, numero uno, first,) function as a soldier, to be trained, capable, and ready to close with and destroy the enemy?
A soldier who is engaged in peacekeeping, is still a soldier first. If for example, rebel forces in any given theater of operation were to attack a Canadian military instalation, would the commanding officers be inclined to continue to commit thier forces elsewhere in accordance with the peacekeeping mission. No, everyone would be busy killing rebels, and they wouldn‘t stop until they defeated them. Combat comes first, you don‘t ignore it, you don‘t learn how to fulfill peacekeeping agendas before you learn how to shoot a rifle. If you haven‘t learned how to kill, you wouldnt make much of a peacekeeper, otherwise peacekeeping would be about sending hippies and preachers into conflict zones to try and solve differences through prayer and "sharing circles".
If people wouldn‘t be so defensive they would realise that those in this forum who are indicating that indeed soldiers must by definition be trained killers, are NOT insinuating that our troops are nothing more than "assasins"
If you would have bother to have read my whole post you may have seen: "I think everyone in this forum understands that our soldiers are much more than simply being trained killers."
Or, "People who take it a step further and express the viewpoint that soldier ARE cold blooded killers, or murderers, or women and children killers, obviously have no concept of what our military does in this world".
No one (at least not me) is saying that all a soldier does is kill. However he has been trained to kill. The police have been trained to kill. Slaughter house workers have been trained to kill animals. It‘s part of the job, the same as a forestfire fighter starting a controled burn to combat a fire.
You wouldnt call him an arsonist, he‘s been specially trained to start fires when the situation calls for it. You could call him a trained fire starter, and you could say it with a sinister tone of voice to insinuate that hes no better than a criminal for doing it, but thats stupid, just the same as someone using that same tone of voice when speaking about our soldiers being "trained killers".
So here it is, in the broad array of tasks that a soldier must be trained and prepared to perform, falls the task of killing enemies. Therefore he has to be trained to kill. When his killing training is completed he becomes a "trained killer". He also is likely to be a trained boot polisher, a trained bed maker, a trained uniform wearer. Do you see?
Nothing sinister about it. It‘s a job. Killing just happens to be a major component of the fundamental job description of a soldier.
