anyone else have friends that are soldiers in iraq or afganistan

i was just wondering because it seems like where i'm from there are so many guys leavin for the war

My old Battery was out there from before the start and came home 8 months ago, no casualties sustained and plenty of friends made.

It is not a war anymore, it's an occupation.

Killing is not an occupation

Yes, it is.

no most of them do not want to harm a soul its just what they have to do i think i know what it is and waht it isnt my dad is an ex army and my uncle an ex navy and my cousin is a marins my grandpa is an ex marine and i have tons of frinds in the army and family they tell me what it is like in war and theyd rather not kill a soul but they have dedicated there lives to fighting for there country and they believ what they do is right and killing isnt right it isnt there occupation killing is a solution to a problem that does nothing but hurt...

Im ex-Army myself.

You sign up, you accept it can be part of the job.

Simple as that.

it is part of the job but it is not the job

you help people dont you? or you saying all you were good for is taking lives and thats all you can do

yes.. now read your statement that lead to my first answer and see where I said was the job.

I'll say that the threat of killing is the Army's primary role.

Guns, tanks, helicopters, jets, bullets, grenades shells missiles, ships, submarines, mines, torpedoes and depth charges are made for one purpose and one purpose only: Turning alive people into dead people.

I helped plenty, my friend.

On the streets of Northern Ireland my job was to be a deterrent.. a friendly but very real deterrent.

In a field of operations my job was to make sure no one got past me.

That's soldiery as a whole.

A soldier is a fighting unit, that is what they are trained for.

well there we go you just answered what i meant you said that killing is an occupation when it is not it all reality it remains to persist as a means of ending someone to end a problem you cant solve a problem through killing it is highly unlikely

no there not

a soldier is to serve and protect

Killing is part of a soldier's job and therefore his occupation.

But Iraq is occupied all the same, fella.

"a soldier is to serve and protect"

Maybe the difference in opinion is why the British Army is considered to be the most professional in the world.

part of soemthing does not make it the whole thing thatd be like me saying im a hooker my only job is sex lol when in doubt it is not lmao sorry i am trying to humor myself

no not professional if you mean by killing as professional then your wrong killing is not a profession phsychology is a profession

Keeping it light and breezy is good, Zach.

you know thanks for arguing it is good to once in a while it gets things off your chest i never realized it

Soldiery is a profession, the outlook and attitude of how the job is accomplished is what sets the British Army apart.

Hearts and minds is a fundamental role, but first and a foremost a soldier has one objective.

but yet i believe there are always two sides to a story neither being completely true everything has its fallacies

yeah to serve his country" in what part of them words does it say kill

true, Im just examining one side of the coin.

In over four years of service the action part was less than four hours, but those four hours were what I was trained for.

yeah and i am flipping the coin not sure what to decide what is true

To serve his country is the ideal.

Killing is a part of the ideal.

Where in the Police's mantra "To protect and serve" does it say arrest?

you got me kind of in a twist but yet all of what police do is not arrest like i said it isnt all fo who there occupation is an occupation is a title given to the job the occupation might have killing but it certaintly isnt killing

Well, seeing as I meant occupation as in occupation of a country you've been twisted from the start.

And I have agreed with you all along too, just raising critical points to keep you thinking.

The history of warfare defines a soldier's role as a killing machine. The role of soldiery is changing, however.

history is twisted mistakes are always made past is the past i believe what they did in the past with a soldier is then

A warrior is one who wages war. Take away the killing part and what is left?

war is waged in so many ways

ok, so define war without death.

war is a justification for a certain belief but killing is not justified

you can have a war of words
you can have a war against acid rain doesnt mean it is involved with killing i know my concet doesnt seem right to you its just what i think

the word war came from a eauopean word that means confusion now what in confusion does killing persist

No, that's fine, but that concept is not linked with soldiery.

Can we wage war as men, as soldiers without death, killing and destruction, and if so how are matters resolved?

sorry i cant spell to good sometimes hope you knwo what i am saying

matters are never resolved so kiling does nothing

war is a justification for a certain belief but killing is not justified

A self refuting statement.. war is unjust.

dont worry about the spelling, I'm with you.