I think we should blame war neither on the government nor on the soldiers, but always on the enemy. That´s how it has always worked.
Upvote
0
I am sorry...
Not everyone agrees with you.
War is necessary for the defense of the rights of people all over the world. Because evil does not put its weapons down, nor can good.
And ironically: the nations with voluntary military service and not compulsory are almost always the nations who find themselves on the side of righteousness.
Your view seems really close minded towards war and really overbearing.
That is rubbish. Soldiers might not choose which wars they fight in, but the fact is when they sign up they have chosen a career which will very likely mean they will be contributing to wars. So, yes, war is their choice.
I can never get my head around this sort of thinking.
Yes, it is politicians who declare war, but I can not for the life of me understand how someone can say soldiers aren't to blame for wars. If it wasn't for the millions of men and women around the world who willingly sign up to become trained killers, there would be no one to fight for the politicians. The sooner the general public (in every country) wake up and realise being a soldier is NOT an acceptable job the better.
No soldiers No wars!
I think we should blame war neither on the government nor on the soldiers, but always on the enemy. That´s how it has always worked.
I know, very few people agree with me. It's like they've all been brainwashed to think that signing up to the army and being trained for combat (which will inevitably involve deaths and injuries) is okay.
Again, if no man was prepared to pick up a gun, you wouldn't be able to have a compulsory military. The army really does highlight the failure in man.
Various points:
-No mass murderer (that I know of) killed strictly in the name of atheism. Atheists like Pol Pot and Stalin killed in the name of Communism, a complex ideology that often includes atheism as one of the tenets.
-I wouldn't claim Hitler was a Christian. He put on a nice show of orthodox religion for his predominately-Christian followers, but privately he dabbled in ancient Pagan mythology and the occult. He probably believed in some divine Providence, so he was not an atheist, but it's pretty meaningless to debate that either way. He killed based on the fascist and anti-Semitic ideology of Nazism.
-It's true that very few wars are purely ideological or religious, and most conflicts stem from very worldly desires for political power, land, and wealth. However, warmongers still justify their slaughter to the people by claiming the religious or philosophical high-ground. We need to strip away the facade of noble reasons and just plain admit when we're fighting for profit. That would probably kill most of the popular support for most wars.
The sooner the general public (in every country) wake up and realise being a soldier is NOT an acceptable job the better.
And attacking a country who had not attacked us and gave no suggestion that they were going to do so, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, accomplishes this how? And... "a few hundred..." might check your numbers again on that one. Last time I checked, several thousand US soliders and several HUNDRED thousand Iraqi civilians were dead from the Iraq conflict alone. By that reasoning, why not just attack, say, Mongolia? Can you prove that they AREN'T planning an attack on America? Wouldn't it be better just to lose a few hundred lives putting them in their place and destroying any military capacity they might have, than risk them attacking us here?
As to the OP... no, I don't think denying religious soldiers weapon is a good idea. Like any gun control initiative, it sounds nice in theory (as does eliminating guns entirely), but in practice it would just lead to the "bad guys" being the only ones holding weapons (religious zealots in other countries, not to mention those "believers" in our own military who were willing to lie to get a gun.)
It´s funny how you hold that against those very persons who refuse to partake in it.Haha... We should blame war on the human condition. Because that's what it is: one of our many human flaws.
I don´t think it is a good idea for anyone to enter a setup in which he has to define himself as a tool that others can do with what they want.It seems to me that defending your nation against an invasion by a foreign power is an acceptable job. The problem only exists when politicians initiate wars or engage in "nation building". Don't blame the tool for what the decision-makers choose to do with it.
There is no shortage in bashing the perceived enemies, so we can sure this part is covered quite fine.It's a fantastic idea if you include Muslims.
If you are going to Neo Con and/or Bush bash, please Muslim's bash as well. Far more civilians are killed by Muslims than Bush and his band of inept goofballs.
I don´t think it is a good idea for anyone to enter a setup in which he has to define himself as a tool that others can do with what they want.
If "responsibility" has any meaning I think this would be a good starting point for a world with more responsibility.
I can never get my head around this sort of thinking.
Yes, it is politicians who declare war, but I can not for the life of me understand how someone can say soldiers aren't to blame for wars. If it wasn't for the millions of men and women around the world who willingly sign up to become trained killers, there would be no one to fight for the politicians. The sooner the general public (in every country) wake up and realise being a soldier is NOT an acceptable job the better.
No soldiers No wars!